GIFT  or 
MICHAEL  REE&E 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/argumentprincipOObakerich 


THE 


Principles  of  Argumentation 


R 


GEORGE   PIERCE   BAKE 


ASSISTANT    PROFESSOR    OF   ENGLISH    IN    HARVARD    COLLEGE 


Boston,  U.S.A.,  and  London 

GINN    &     COMPANY,    PUBLISHERS 

1898 


Copyright,  1895 
By  GEORGE   PIERCE   BAKER 


ALL    RIGHTS    RESERVED 


REESE 


TO 

Bfcams  Sberman  1bUl 

BOYLSTON    PROFESSOR    OF    RHETORIC    AND    ORATORY 

IN 

HARVARD- COLLEGE 


PREFACE. 


WHEN  a  man  tries  to  interest  in  Argumentation  a 
class  of  college  students  who  have  never  studied 
the  subject,  he  meets  at  once  several  difficulties.  Most 
of  the  students  will  regard  it  as  too  special  a  matter  to 
be  of  any  use  to  them.  A  few  who  are  hoping  to  lead 
literary  lives  will  be  tolerant  because  they  feel  that, 
though  Argumentation  is  far  less  important  to  them 
than  Narration,  Description,  or  Exposition,  a  knowledge 
of  all  kinds  of  writing  is  their  province,  and  hence  they 
should  understand  Argumentation,  unimportant  as  it  is. 
A  small  portion  of  the  class,  those  students  who  look 
forward  to  a  career  in  the  Law,  will  welcome  the  work. 
That  is,  there  is  an  almost  universal  idea  among  college 
students  that  Argumentation  is  a  study  that  can  have 
real  usefulness  only  for  the  lawyer  or  those  who  in 
their  careers  may  be  called  into  public  controversy. 
For  such  students  Argumentation  is  synonymous  with 
a  study  of  Formal  Logic  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  rules 
of  evidence  and  legal  procedure  on  the  other.  Naturally 
they  dread  a  subject  that  promises  to  be  so  dry  and 
of  so  little  general  use.  Nor  are  college  students  the 
persons    who    seem   to   think   that   Argumentation 


;only 


vj  PREFACE. 


means  these  two  things.  It  seems  to  be  a  wide-spread 
idea  among  many  classes  of  men.  For  this  reason,  the 
aim  of  this  book  is  to  point  out  clearly  that  there  is 
argumentation  —  the  most  important  kind  of  all,  since  it  is 
fundamental  to  all  others  —  which  exists  independent  of 
the  rules  which  have  been  formulated  to  govern  the 
handling  of  evidence  in  courts,  independent  of  legal 
procedure,  and  which  can  be  understood  without  any  study 
of  books  of  Formal  Logic.  It  is  the  argumentation  of 
everyday  life,  the  principles  of  which  every  intelligent 
man  should  understand.  These  principles  the  following 
pages  try  to  expound  simply  and  interestingly.  If  this 
book  were  my  first  attempt  to  teach  Argumentation  on  this 
basis  I  should  print  it  with  trepidation,  but  in  some  years 
of  teaching  with  this  idea  of  Argumentation  constantly  in 
view  I  have  seen  indifference  to  the  subject,  even  intoler- 
ance, among  my  students,  change  to  growing  interest  —  a 
change  that,  by  the  testimony  of  both  the  students  and 
those  who  have  assisted  in  the  work,  is  due  to  the  basing 
of  the  teaching  on  just  this  idea. 

This  book  is  intended,  then,  to  give  a  student  a  training 
in  Argumentation,  which  must  precede  his  study  of  the 
special  rules  of  procedure  belonging  to  courts,  the  rules 
that  there  govern  the  handling  of  evidence ;  which  may 
interest  him  in  a  later  study  of  the  laws  of  logic  that 
underlie  all  thinking,  —  in  Formal  Logic,  —  if  he  wishes. 
It  is  offered  as  a  more  elaborate  treatise  than  that  which 
in  most  books  on  Rhetoric  space  permits.  It  is,  in  a 
sense,  introductory  to  such  a  book  as  Professor  Robinson's 


PREFACE.  vii 

Forensic  Oratory,  which  is  written  distinctly  for  the  young 
lawyer. 

That  throughout  this  book  written  Argumentation  is 
chiefly  considered  is  not  because  the  following  pages  were 
originally  developed  before  classes  which  were  busy  only 
with  written  argumentative  work.  It  is  because  I  believe 
that  for  the  speaker  as  well  as  the  writer  the  principles 
which  lead  to  convincingness  merely  —  not  to  persuasion 
—  are  practically  the  same  ;  and,  most  important  of  all, 
because  I  am  convinced  that  the  easiest,  the  most  rapid 
method  for  a  speaker  to  acquire  good  form,  and  an  ability 
to  handle  evidence  well,  is  for  him  to  write  out  his  work 
until  he  has  mastered  the  principles  in  this  book  which 
lead  to  convincingness  merely.  It  is  a  sad  fact  that  the 
so-called  extemporaneous  speakers,  though  often  admir- 
able in  persuasion,  are  usually  far  less  successful  in  con 
viction,  because  their  work  lacks  form  and  a  skillful 
handling  of  evidence.  These  two  powers  can  come  only 
from  constant  practice  and  careful  criticism  by  one's  self 
and  others  of  the  results.  A  preliminary  writing  out  of 
the  arguments  offers  the  best  means  for  this  growth 
through  criticism.  Little  by  little  as  a  student  becomes 
more  accustomed  to  speaking,  readier  on  his  feet,  he  can 
speak  from  full  notes  merely;  then  from  a  full  brief;  then 
from  a  very  slight  brief  ;  eventually  he  may  perhaps  be 
able  to  speak  without  any  brief.  Doubtless  the  speaker 
who  seems  independent  of  his  notes,  or  at  least  of  his 
written  discourse,  has  most  control  of  his  audience,  but 
such   independence,  combined  with  good  form   and   con- 


viii  PREFACE. 

vincingness,  is  an  acquired  power.  The  masters  of 
Argumentation  have  not  been  ashamed  to  attain  by  the 
method  just  explained  their  final  mastery  of  their  art. 

The  principles  set  forth  in  this  book,  the  queries 
answered,  I  have  so  often  talked  over  with  the  assistants 
who,  at  Harvard  and  Wellesley,  have  aided  me  in  my 
work,  that  I  feel  the  results  here  given  are  as  much  theirs 
as  mine.  I  owe  so  much  in  the  past,  also,  to  their  enthu- 
siasm and  their  intelligent  devotion  to  their  work,  that  I 
cannot  refrain  from  recognizing  my  indebtedness.  For 
valuable  suggestions  while  this  book  has  been  going 
through  the  press  and  for  reading  of  the  proofs  I  wish 
in  particular  to  thank  Assistant-Professor  S.  C.  Hart  of 
Wellesley  College,  and  Mr.  F.  G.  Caffey,  of  Montgomery, 
Alabama.  For  the  classification  of  definitions  used  on, 
PP-  54~59  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  Genung  in  his 
Practical  Elements  of  Rhetoric. 

Cambridge, 

Sept.  20,  1895. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

PAGE 

THE   NATURE   OF  ARGUMENTATION i 

I.    The  Relation  of  Argumentation  to  Methods  in  Courts 

of  Law 8 

II.    The  Relation  of  Argumentation  to  Logic      ...  13 
III.    What  Argumentation  includes  besides  Logic      .               .15 

1.  Persuasive  Methods 15 

2.  Rhetoric 16 

3.  Rules  of  Evidence 19 

CHAPTER   II. 

"ANALYSIS  —  The  Five  Important  Steps  in  Analysis  .        .        .        .30 

I.     I  iM  inc.  a  Proposition 32 

11.    Definition 40 

III.  Phrasing  the  General  Proposition 66 

IV.  Finding  the  Special  Issue 70 

V.    Deciding  what  Relations  the  other  Essential  Material 

BEARS   TO   THE   SPECIAL    ISSUE 77 

CHAPTER    III. 

BRIEFS   AND    BRIEF-DRAWING 83 

I.    The  Introduction 91 

II.    The  Brief  Proper 108 

III.    The  Conclusion 150 

CHAPTER   IV. 
THE   PREPARATORY    READING   FOR   ARGUMENTATION         .       166 


x  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   V. 

PAGE 

EVIDENCE. 176 

I.    The  Nature  of  Evidence 176 

II.    Kinds  of  Evidence 196 

III.    Tests  of  Evidence 220 

CHAPTER   VI. 

THE   FORENSIC   ITSELF 269 

I.    The  Introduction 271 

II.    The  Argument  Itself 293 

III.    The  Peroration 322 

CHAPTER   VII. 

PERSUASION  —  The  Four  Sources  of  Persuasion       .        .        .  34;, 

I.    The  Subject  Itself 345 

II.    The  Rhetorical  Treatment  of  the  Subject        .        .  346 

III.  The  Application  of  the  Subject  to  the  Audience        .  347 

IV.  Qualities  in  the  Speaker  or  Writer      ....  ^367 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

SOME  FINAL  SUGGESTIONS 374 


APPENDIX .     .        .        .        .377 

I.    Briefs  for  Criticism *■".        .        .       377 

II.    Material  for  a  Trial  Brief 40F 

INDICES. 

I.    Of  Subjects 403 

II.    Of  Quotations 412 


ARGUMENTATION. 
CHAPTER   I. 

THE   NATURE   OF   ARGUMENTATION. 

ARGUMENTATION  is  the  art  of  producing  in  the 
mind  of  some  one  else  a  belief  in  the  ideas  which 
the  speaker  or  writer  wishes  the  hearer  or  reader  to 
accept.  This  result  may  be  gained  in  either  of  two  ways : 
(i)  by  convincing  the  hearer  or  reader,  through  his  intel- 
lect, by  the  cogency  of  the  reasoning  advanced ;  or  (2)  by 
bringing  out  forcibly  that  in  the  ideas  which  will  stir  the 
emotions  of  the  hearer  or  reader  sufficiently  to  make  him 
act  as  the  speaker  or  writer  desires.  He  who  uses  in 
his  argumentation  only  the  appeal  _to_the  intellect  — 
depends  for  his  success  solely  on  Jiis__logicaL- strength, 
on  the  clearness,  the_force,.and  the  cjonvincingness  of  his 
statement  of  his  ideas — employs  the  method  of  Convic- 
tion only,  and  writes  pure  argument  so-called.  He  who 
depends  entirely  on  finding  in  his  material  what  will 
excite  the  emotions  of  his  hearer  or  reader  uses  only  the 
method  of  Persuasion. 

The  simplest  illustration  of  argumentation  that  is  pure 
conviction  is  the  proof  of  some  theorem  of  Geometry,  as, 
for  instance,  that  the  square  of  the  hypotenuse  of  a  right- 
angled  triangle  is  equal  to  the  sum  of  the  squares  of  the 


2  ARG  U ME  NT  A  TION. 

other  two  sides.  All  the  proof  adduced  appeals  solely  to 
the  intellect,  and  rests  for  its  force  on  ideas  already  found 
to  be  true,  or,  as  they  are  developed,  felt  at  once  to  be 
true.  This  kind  of  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  a  state- 
ment, however,  is  hardly  argumentation  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  used  here.  The  following  extract  from 
Lord  Mansfield's  defense  of  Allan  Evans1  is  a  better 
illustration  of  the  argumentation  that  appeals  to  the 
intellect  only  : 

"My  Lords,  the  meaning  of  this  maxim,  'that  a  man  shall 
not  disable  himself,'  is  solely  this  :  that  a  man  shall  not  dis- 
able himself  by  his  own  wilful  crime ;  and  such  a  disability 
the  law  will  not  allow  him  to  plead.  If  a  man  contracts  to 
sell  an  estate  to  any  person  upon  certain  terms  at  such  a  time, 
and  in  the  meantime  he  sells  it  to  another,  he  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  say,  '  Sir,  I  cannot  fulfil  my  contract ;  it  is  out  of 
my  power;  I  have  sold  my  estate  to  another.'  Such  a  plea 
would  be  no  bar  to  an  action,  because  the  act  of  his  selling  it 

1  "  The  city  of  London  was  in'want  of  a  new  mansion-house  for  the  Lord 
Mayor,  and  resolved  to  build  one  on  a  scale  of  becoming  magnificence. 
Bat,  as  the  expense  would  be  great,  some  ingenious  Churchmen  devised  a 
plan  for  extorting  a  large  part  of  the  money  out  of  the  Dissenters,  who 
had  for  a  number  of  years  been  growing  in  business  and  property,  under 
the  protection  of  the  Toleration  Act.  The  mode  was  this :  A  by-law  of 
the  city  was  passed  imposing  a  fine  of  /"6oo  on  any  person  who  should  be 
elected  as  sheriff  and  decline  to  serve.  Some  wealthy  individual  was  then 
taken  from  the  dissenting  body,  and  by  a  concert  among  the  initiated  was 
chosen  to  the  office  of  sheriff.  Of  course,  he  was  not  expected  to  serve, 
for  the  Test  and  Corporation  Act  rendered  him  incapable.  He  was, 
therefore,  compelled  to  decline ;  and  was  then  fined  £600  under  a  by-law 
framed  for  the  very  purpose  of  extorting  this  money.  ...  At  length, 
Allan  Evans,  a  man  of  spirit,  who  had  been  selected  as  a  victim,  resolved 
to  try  the  question.  He  refused  to  pay  the  fine,  and  was  sued  in  the 
Sheriff's  Court."  By  appeals  the  case  was  brought  before  the  House  of 
Lords.  In  the  House,  Lord  Mansfield  spoke  in  behalf  of  Evans.  See 
Select  British  IUoqtience,  Goodrich. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  3 

to  another  is  the  very  breach  of  contract.  So,  likewise,  a  man 
who  hath  promised  marriage  to  one  lady,  and  afterwards  mar- 
ried another,  cannot  plead  in  bar  of  a  prosecution  from  the 
first  lady  that  he  is  already  married,  because  his  marrying 
the  second  lady  is  the  very  breach  of  promise  to  the  first. 
A  man  shall  not  be  allowed  to  plead  that  he  was  drunk  in  bar 
of  a  criminal  prosecution,  though  perhaps  he  was  at  the  time 
as  incapable  of  the  exercise  of  reason  as  if  he  had  been  insane, 
because  his  drunkenness  was  itself  a  crime.  He  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  excuse  one  crime  by  another.  The  Roman  soldier, 
who  cut  off  his  thumbs,  was  not  suffered  to  plead  his  disability 
for  the  service  to  procure  his  dismission  with  impunity,  because 
his  incapacity  was  designedly  brought  on  him  by  his  own 
wilful  fault. 

"  When  it  was  said,  therefore,  that  a  man  cannot  plead  his 
crime  in  excuse  for  not  doing  what  he  is  by  law  required  to  do, 
it  only  amounts  to  this,  that  he  cannot  plead  in  excuse  what, 
when  pleaded,  is  no  excuse ;  but  there  is  not  in  this  the  shadow 
of  an  objection  to  his  pleading  what  is  an  excuse  —  pleading 
a  legal  disqualification.  If  he  is  nominated  to  be  a  justice  of 
the  peace,  he  may  say,  '  I  cannot  be  a  justice  of  the  peace,  for 
I  have  not  a  hundred  pounds  a  year.'  In  like  manner,  a 
Dissenter  may  plead,  i  I  have  not  qualified,  and  I  cannot 
qualify,  and  am  not  obliged  to  qualify ;  and  you  have  no  right 
to  fine  me  for  not  serving."'1 

This  whole  speech  is  almost  free  from  attempts  to 
move  the  emotions  of  the  hearers  —  is,  practically,  a 
specimen  of  the  method  of  pure  conviction.  Mills's  essay 
on  The  Subjection  of  Women  is  an  illustration  of  the  pure 
conviction  that  does  not  use  persuasion. 

Pure  persuasion  that  arouses  the  emotions  only, 
without    appealing   to    the    intellect,    is    shown    by   this 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  31,  32. 


4  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

peroration    of  Grattan's   speech  on   the   "Declaration  of 
Irish   Rights":1 

11  Hereafter,  when  these  things  shall  be  history,  your  age  of 
thraldom  and  poverty,  your  sudden  resurrection,  commercial 
redress,  and  miraculous  armament,  shall  the  historian  stop  at 
liberty  and  observe  —  that  here  the  principal  men  among  us 
fell  into  mimic  trances  of  gratitude  —  they  were  awed  by  a 
weak  ministry,  and  bribed  by  an  empty  treasury  —  and  when 
liberty  was  within  their  grasp,  and  the  temple  opened  her 
folding  doors,  and  the  arms  of  the  people  clanged,  and  the 
zeal  of  the  nation  urged  and  encouraged  them  on,  that  they 
fell  down,  and  were  prostituted  at  the  threshold. 

••  I  might,  as  a  constituent,  come  to  your  bar  and  demand 
my  liberty.  I  do  call  upon  you,  by  the  laws  of  the  land  and 
their  violation,  by  the  instruction  of  eighteen  counties,  by 
inspiration,  and  providence  of  the  present  moment, 
tell  us  the  rule  by  which  we  shall  go  —  assert  the  law  of 
Ireland  —  declare  the  liberty  of  the  land. 

••  I  will  not  be  answered  by  a  public  lie  in  the  shape  of  aw 

linent;  neither,  speaking  f<»r  the  subject's  freedom,  am  I 

r  of  faction.      I  wish  for  nothing  but  to  breathe,  in  this 

our    island,   in   common    with    my   fellow-subject  iir  of 

Liberty.       1    ha>      no  ambition,    unless   it    be    the   ambition    to 

k  your  chain,  and  to  contemplate  your  glory.     I  never  will 

be  satisfied  so  long  as  the  meanest  cottage]  in  Ireland  I 

1  In  1780,  Irish  nationalism  had  been  "fi  red  by  such  writ 

.  Molyneux,  and  Swift;  by  the  entry  of  Flood  and  Graftal!  into  the 
Irish    House  of   Commons;    by  the    successful    revolt    of    the    Am 
colonies;  and  by  the  formation  of  the  vol 

ntial  aid  to  Grattan.      Thus  fortified.  Graftaa  moved  in  thi 

iment,  on  April  19,  1780:  'That  the  King's  Most  Excellent  M 

and  the  Lords  and  Commoi  md,  lie  tin-  only  power  competent  t<> 

laws   to  bind    Ireland.''"      In    support    of    this    motion    be   mad.-   the 

ii,  a  part  of  which  is  quoted  above.     See  Camelot   Series:   / 

Orations. 


ARCUMENTATi  5 

link  of  the  British  chain  clanking  to  his  rags;  he  may  be 
i,  he  shall  not  be  in  iron;  and  I  do  see  the  time  is  at 
the  spirit  is  gone  forth,  the  declaration  is  planted;  and 
though  great  men  should  apostatise,  yet  the  cause  will  live ; 
and  though  the  public  speaker  should  die,  yet  the  immortal 
fire  shall  outlast  the  organ  which  conveyed  it.  and  the  breath 
of  liberty,  like  the  word  of  the  holy  man,  will  not  die  with  the 
prophet,  but  survive  him."  ' 

The  whole  speech  of  Grattan  uses  the  method  of  per- 

on  more  than  that  of  conviction.     A  good  but  rather 

lion    of    pure    persuasion    is    the   speech  of 

Antony  over  the  bo«:  Julius  Caesar,  Act  III., 

2. 


The  Weakness  of  Pure  Conviction  or  Pure 
Pi  RSI   iSIOl 

A  little  thought  on  the  distinctions  just  made  will  show 
that  each  of  the  two  methods,  Conviction  and  Persuasion, 
is  by  faulty  —  that  each  is  the  complement  of  the 

Other.  He  who  appeals  to  the  intellect  only  —  simply 
tries    to    convin.  ing    the    feelings,    the   emotions, 

untouched  —  runs  tli  i)  of  being  dull  and  dry,  for 

his  work  will  lack  warmth  and  color;  and  (2)  otlailing  to 
produce  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  hearer  or  reader, 
for  a  g  a  belief  as  true  does  not  always  mean  to 

act  promptly  or  steadily  on  that  idea.     Hejwho  tries  only 
iinsjhe  dangers  of  all  excited  action :  (i)  that 
liable  to  cease  as  suddenly  as  it  began,  leaving  no 
principle  of  conduct    behind ;    and   (2)   is   liable    at    any 

.melot  Series:  Political  Orations,  pp.  136,  137. 


6  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

momenlLla-disappear-  before_axlear-aftd convincing  st; 
mentjof  the  reasons  why  such  conduct  is  ill-judged. 

There  is  little  need  to  point  out  the  dryness,  excepi 
men  of  mathematical  minds,  of  the  geometrical  dem 
stration  which  illustrated  pure  conviction.  When,  1 
we  compare  the  extract  from  Lord  Mansfield  with  t 
from  Grattan,  certainly  we  see  that  the  latter  with  its 
and  daring  is  more  vivid,  more  entertaining,  than 
former.  Hearers  of  Lord  Mansfield  might  well  h 
admitted  the  truth  of  his  words,  and  yet  have  failed 
the  next  opportunity,  to  apply  his  conclusions;  un 
the  spur  of  Grattan's  rousing  speech,  does  inactivity  se 
possible  ?  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  action  resulting  fr 
words  like  those  of  Grattan  must  be  given  an  immedi 
end,  —  a  line  of  conduct,  —  or  it  will  fade  for  lack 
direction.  Before,  too,  a  forcible  statement  of  the  Brit 
view  of  the  case,  it  might  readily  weaken,  for  Grattan  d 
not  convince  our  brains  that  he  is  right,  —  he  simply  s 
our  hearts.  Certainly  the  first  part  of  the  speech  of  Ant< 
is  vivid  and  stirring  enough,  and  Antony  takes  care  not 
cease  until  the  mob  has  found  an  object  upon  which 
vent  its  excitement ;  but  had  Brutus,  instead  of  balanc 
clauses  and  dealing  in  vague  statements  as  to  Caes; 
wrong-doing,  arraigned  him  clearly  and  succinctly,  sh< 
ing  cogently  wherein  his  power  seemed  dangerous 
Rome,  Antony's  words  would  have  lost  a  large  part 
their  force.  Antony,  with  nothing  against  him  exc 
vague  charges,  skillfully  turned  away  from  these,  and  g; 
all  his  time  to  stirring  the  hearts  of  his  hearers  by  bri 
ing  out  whatever  in  the  life  and  fate  of  Caesar  co 
move  their  sympathies. 


arg  umenta  tion.  7 

The    Interrelation    of    Conviction   and    Persuasion 
in  Argumentation. 

Each  of  the  two  methods,  Conviction  and  Persua- 
sion, is,  then,  the  complement  of  the  other,  and  ideal 
argumentation  would  combine  perfection  of  reasoning, 
complete  convincingness,  with  perfection  of  persua- 
sive power  —  excitement  of  just  the  right  emotions 
to  just  the  right  extent  to  obtain  the  ends  desired  by 
the  speaker  or  writer.  Or,  to  put  the  matter  a  little 
differently,  such  argumentation  would  be  a  perfect  blend- 
ing of  arguments  that  could  not  fail  to  convince  the 
hearer  or  reader,  and  subtle  expression  or  suggestion  of 
the  way  in  which  the  ideas  to  be  accepted  as  true  should 
appeal  to  his  emotions.  Even,  however,  as  we  but  rarely 
find  argumentation  that  uses  only  the  method  of  Con- 
viction, or  only  the  method  of  Persuasion,  so  this  perfect 
union  of  the  two  methods  is  exceedingly 'rare.  The  bulk 
of  argumentation  lies  between  the  two  extremes  —  Con- 
viction only  and  Persuasion  only — in  a  more  or  less 
successful  mingling  of  the  two. 

A  fine  specimen  of  a  blending  of  the  methods  of  con- 
viction and  persuasion  is  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  "  Liver- 
pool Speech"  in  behalf  of  the  Northern  party  in  the  Civil 
War.1  It  appeals  both  to  the  intellect  and  the  emotions, 
though  more  to  the  latter  than  to  the  former.  '  A  blend- 
ing of  the  two  methods,  with  the  emphasis  on  conviction, 
but  with  such  subtle  handling  of  the  persuasion  that  it 
helps  to  conviction  even  as  it  persuades,  is  Lord  Erskine's 
"  Defence  of  Lord  George  Gordon."  2 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  154-178. 

2  Idem,  pp.  86-153.  For  the  skillful  handling  of  persuasion,  see  pp.  90, 
94,  130,  151. 


8  ARGl TMEA ' TA  TION. 

The  Relation  of  Argumentation  to  Methods  of 
Arguing  in  Law  Courts. 

It  may,  perhaps,  help  toward  a  clearer  understanding 
of  just  what  Argumentation  properly  is  if  we  distinguish 
it  carefully  from  two  subjects  with  which  it  is  at  times 
confounded  :  time-honored  methods  of  procedure  in  courts 
and  Formal  Logic.  Often,  students  of  Rhetoric  pause  at 
the  beginning  of  their  study  of  Argumentation,  saying 
that  it  can  be  of  practical  use  only  to  a  special  class  of 
men,  to  those  who  intend  to  make  the  law  their  vocation. 
This  is  really  as  illogical  as  if  they  hesitated  to  study 
Description  (which  "produces  in  the  mind  of  the  reader 
a  picture  of  certain  objects  or  persons  ")  and  Narration 
(which  "gives  an  account  of  an  event  or  a  series  of 
events"1)  because  these  can  be  of  use  only  to  the 
novelist.  In  both  cases  the  students  limit  to  the  class 
of  men  most  conspicuously  using  the  form  in  question 
a  method  of  expression  used  hourly  by  millions  of  men 
of  all  races  and  climes.  Any  student  of  Description 
and  Narration  knows  that  the  little  child  who  stammer- 
ingly  and  in  ill-chosen  words  tries  to  tell  its  nurse 
about  some  bird  or  animal  which  has  aroused  its  interest ; 
the  schoolboy  writing  home  about  a  clay  at  school,  or 
some  base-ball  contest  with  a  rival  academy  ;  the  friend 
describing  some  scene  he  has  known,  or  recounting  some 
adventure  on  his  travels ;  the  overseer  directing  his  men 
by  a  careful  statement  of  how  the  work  is  to  be  done, 
or  an  account  of  the  overcoming  of  the  same  difficulty  at 
some  past  time  ;  —  all  unconsciously  use  the  same  methods 

1  These  definitions  are  from  Introduction  to  Theme  Writing,  J.  B. 
Fletcher  and  G.  R.  Carpenter,  p.  2. 


A  R  G  l  \  WE  A '  TA  T/OA  \  9 

of  description  and  narration  that  the  novelist,  probably 
working  more  consciously,  uses  with  greater  ease  and 
success.  So,  too,  the  child  who  tries  to  convince  his 
nurse  that  he  is  right  in  not  wishing  to  obey  her  com- 
mand ;  the  schoolboy  who  endeavors  to  induce  his  father 
to  let  him  play  on  the  school  base-ball  team  ;  the  man 
who  seeks  to  persuade  a  friend  to  visit  in  his  traveling 
these  sights  rather  than  others ;  the  overseer  who  tries 
to  make  an  obtuse  workman  see  that  only  in  a  certain 
way  can  he  successfully  accomplish  the  task  that  has 
been  set  him  ;  —  all  of  these  argue,  though  probably  not 
so  skillfully  as  does  the  lawyer  in  the  courts.  The  stu- 
dents who  hesitate  to  study  Argumentation  because  it 
belongs  as  a  method  of  expression  especially  to  lawyers 
really  mistake  a  species  for  the  genus. 

"Every  issue  in  a  cause  [in  law]  presents  two  questions, 
either  or  both  of  which  may  be  disputed,  (i)  What  were 
the  facts  in  which  the  controversy  originated  ?  (2)  What 
are  the  rules  of  law  by  which,  in  view  of  these  facts,  the 
issue  is  to  be  determined  P"1  It  will  be  seen  that  (1)  is  a 
matter  of  investigation,  and  that  the  success  of  the  lawyer 
in  it  must  depend  on  his  ability  to  analyze  keenly  and  to 
support  so  clearly  and  convincingly  his  belief  as  to  what 
the  facts  are  as  to  convince  any  rational  being  that  it  is 
correct.  In  what  that  is  essential,  however,  does  this 
argumentation  differ  from  that  of  the  child,  the  boy,  the 
traveller,  or  the  overseer  of  the  illustrations  ?  Each  has 
tried  to  the  best  of  his  ability  to  see  what  are  the  facts 
in  the  case  he  wishes  to  present,  and  to  convince  his 
hearers  of  the  truth  of  his  ideas.  The  knowledge  upon 
which  all  these  different  attempts,  including  that  of  the 

1  W.  C.  Robinson,  Forensic  Oratory,  §  60. 


10  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

lawyer,  depend  for  success  or  failure,  is  of  the  universal 
laws  of  reasoning  that  apply  in  every  language  and  in 
any  place. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  (2),  "  What  are  the  rules  of 
law  by  which  the  issue  is  to  be  determined  ? "  the 
lawyer  makes  use  of  his  knowledge  of  special  rules 
and  conventions,  not  used  by  men  universally,  but  only 
in  the  courts  of  his  land.  In  the  courts  of  other  coun- 
tries he  would  find  other  conventions,  and  the  same  case 
might  need  to  be  treated  differently.  "  Many  of  the 
great  principles  of  law  require  no  proof.  Embalmed  in 
venerable  and  familiar  maxims,  they  are  deposited  in  the 
memories  of  all  men,  and  these  subsist  as  universal  and 
impregnable  ideas.  Others,  less  important  and  familiar, 
are  proved  by  the  production  of  authorities,  or  are  stated 
by  the  advocate  subject  to  confirmation  or  correction  by 
the  court."1  "A  judge,  when  called  upon  to  decide, 
or  to  aid  a  jury  in  deciding,  whether,  for  example,  a 
person  be  innocent  or  guilty  of  a  murder,  holds  himself 
tied  by  rules  of  evidence,  that  is,  precepts  established 
either  by  Act  of  Parliament  or  by  the  practice  of  the 
courts,  defining  what  is  the  kind  of  proof  which  a  court 
of  justice  may  receive  for  the  determination  of  the 
questions  laid  before  it." 2  An  illustration  of  the  first 
quotation  is  the  maxim  of  the  courts  that  a  child  under 
seven  cannot  commit  a  crime.  A  judge,  in  deciding  what 
to  do  with  a  child  under  seven  caught  stealing,  would 
start  from  this  premise  ;  a  mere  investigator  would  say, 
and  rightly,  that  it  is  an  interesting  psychological  ques- 
tion whether  a  child  under  seven  can  be  guilty,  that  is, 

1  W.  C.  Robinson,  Forensic  Oratory,  §  62. 
Dicey,  The  Verdict,  p.  n. 


ARGl  'MEXTA  TION.  11 

responsible  for  his  crime,  and  would  investigate  the  par- 
ticular case  on  its  merits,  disregarding  the  maxim  of  the 
courts.  The  second  quotation  may  be  illustrated  as  fol- 
lows :  the  ruling  of  the  courts  is  that  hearsay  evidence 
must  be  excluded,  and  in  hearing  a  case,  a  judge  would 
exclude  that  which  presented  itself.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  mere  investigator  gathers  all  the  evidence  that  he 
can  find,  hearsay  and  all  other  kinds,  and  endeavoring 
to  assign  to  each  bit  its  value,  draws  his  conclusion  as  to. 
the  case  in  hand.  In  the  division  of  a  case  made  above 
by  Professor  Robinson,  then,  (i),  deciding  what  are  the 
facts  in  the  case,  depends  wholly  on  the  methods  of 
reasoning  that  all  men  use ;  (2),  deciding  what  are  the 
rules  of  law  by  which  the  issue  is  to  be  determined, 
depends  first  on  a  knowledge  of  rules  special  to  a  small 
area,  and  secondly  on  an  application  of  these  rules  to  the 
facts  by  the  universal  methods  of  reasoning  —  for  the 
lawyer  must  convince  his  hearers  that  the  decisions  he 
holds  are  applicable  really  apply.  In  other  words,  then, 
(2),  the  special  knowledge  necessary  for  a  lawyer, 
depends  upon,  is  surrounded  by,  knowledge  of  the 
universal  methods  of  reasoning. 

A  complete  treatise  on  Argumentation  must,  therefore, 
include  a  chapter  on  rules  of  law,  —  a  huge  chapter,  since 
generations  of  men  have  built  up  a  mass  of  rules  for 
expediting  business  or  increasing  accuracy  in  the  courts, 
—  but  it  would  be  but  a  part  of,  and  secondary  to*  a 
treatment  of  those  principles  upon  which  Argumentation 
universally  depends. 

The  topic,  "Was  Aaron  Burr  guilty  of  treason?" 
furnishes  an  illustration  of  the  distinctions  just  drawn. 
For  a  lawyer  the  case  has  two  interests  :  (1)  What  are  the 


12  ARGl  TMENTA  TION. 

facts  in  the  case ;  and  (2)  what  are  the  rules  by  which 
these  facts  must  be  interpreted.  He  and  an  investigator 
will  each  work  to  find  out  the  facts  in  the  case,  but  the 
lawyer  will  work  with  the  rules  of  courts  as  to  the  per- 
missibility of  hearsay  evidence,  of  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  closely  allied  to  the  prisoner,  etc.,  in  mind. 
For  the  investigator  all  of  this  evidence  will  be  admissible 
if  treated  carefully.  Moreover,  the  lawyer  knows  that  by 
the  laws  of  the  country  there  must  be,  for  conviction  of 
treason,  two  witnesses  to  an  overt  act.  Unless  he  can 
produce  these  two  witnesses,  the  case  will  fail ;  indeed, 
it  did  fail  because  two  witnesses  to  an  overt  act  could 
not  be  found.  The  investigator  is  bound  by  no  such  law 
rules  of  the  court.  For  him  the  question  is  one  of  moral 
guilt,  and  he  will  decide  the  question  by  the  preponder- 
ance of  evidence  for  or  against  Burr,  whether  there  be 
one  or  two  witnesses  to  an  overt  act  of  treason. 

In  brief,  then,  we  see  that  the  lawyer,  in  the  most 
essential  part  of  his  work,  but  makes  a  business  of  using 
thoughtfully  and  cautiously  the  methods  of  reasoning 
which  hourly  millions  of  men,  some  carefully,  some 
hastily,  conform  to  or  transgress.  With  the  exception 
of  the  work  he  does  in  division  (2),  his  methods  are  the 
same  as  those  of  a  civil  engineer  trying  to  show  that  his 
subway  plan  for  a  city  is  better  than  a  rival's ;  a  college 
professor  arguing  as  to  the  appearance  of  the  Greek  stage  ; 
Professor  Huxley  lecturing  in  New  York  in  support  of 
the  theory  of  evolution  ;  George  William  Curtis  or  Mr. 
Roosevelt  pleading  for  Civil  Service  Reform  ;  Dr.  Koch 
or  Dr.  Pasteur  endeavoring  to  establish  the  reliability 
or  the  usefulness  of  a  new  discovery  in  medicine.  More- 
over,  his    methods  are  at   one   with    those   of   the  man 


ARGUMENTATION.  13 

who  is  not  contending  in  debate  or  in  writing  against  any 
opponent,  but  is  trying  to  form  an  opinion  in  some  matter 
important  to  him,  is  trying  to  make  a  correct  judgment. 
To  study  all  these  methods  is  simply  to  examine  how 
the  rational  being  argues  correctly,  how  he  convinces 
and  persuades  his  rational  fellow-being  to  share  his  ideas 
with  him.  The  laws  which  govern  this  universal  argu- 
mentation we  are  to  study. 

The  Relation  of  Argumentation  to  Logic. 

The  misunderstanding  that  treats  Argumentation  as  if 
it  were  little  more  than  an  application  in  everyday  life 
of  the  rules  of  Formal  Logic  has  not  been  infrequent  in 
the  past.  Perhaps  an  examination  of  the  component 
parts  of  a  piece  of  argumentation  will  best  show  us  the 
real  relations  of  Argumentation,  Logic,  and  Formal 
Logic. 

Argumentation  we  have  defined  as  the  art  of  producing 
in  the  mind  of  some  one  else  a  belief  in  the  ideas  which 
the  speaker  or  writer  wishes  the  hearer  or  reader  to 
accept.  When  we  argue,  we  try  to  make  a  listener  or 
reader  believe  that  this  or  that  is  true,  because  for  the 
reasons,  a,  b,  c,  it  seems  to  us  true,  and  because  the  special 
exciting  interest,  d,  that  the  idea  has  for  him,  must  stir 
him  to  act  on  the  belief  we  are  seeking  to  inculcate. 
Or,  to  put  the  matter  concretely,  we  try  to  show  that  the 
appropriations  of  a  particular  River  and  Harbor  Bill 
should  not  be  decreased,  because  (a)  all  mt\st  admit  that 
the  appropriations  may  be  divided  into  three  classes : 
(i)  those  unquestionably  needed,  (2)  those  the  necessity 
for  which  is  disputed,  (3)  those  for  which  there  seems  to 


14  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

be  no  need  (examples  are  given  of  each  by  the  speaker) ; 
(b)  because  the  rivers  and  harbors  named  in  class  (2) 
really,  on  examination  with  the  audience,  all  seem  to  need 
the  amounts  appropriated ;  (c)  because  the  rivers  and 
harbors  of  the  third  class  would  to  an  entirely  unpreju- 
diced person  seem  to  be  well  represented  by  the  harbor 
of  the  town  in  which  the  address  is  made ;  and  (d)  (excit- 
ing cause)  the  audience  knows  the  reasons  why,  though 
the  appropriation  may  seem  large  to  an  outsider,  every 
cent  of  it  is  needed  for  harbor  repairs  necessary  to  the  life 
of  the  town.  These  reasons  with  which  we  support  our 
belief  are  but  thoughts,  and  all  argumentation  is  an 
aggregation  of  reasonings,  or  varied  processes  of  thought. 
Even,  however,  in  the  simplest  reasoning  some  structure 
is  involved,  for  we  do  not  think  at  random,  and  it  is 
evident  that  it  may  have  been  possible  to  examine  these 
processes  of  thinking,  to  study  their  structure,  and  to 
derive  rules  of  correct  thinking  therefrom. 

This  has  been  possible,  and  the  result  is  called  Logic, 
"the  science  of  the  laws  of  thought,"  or  that  which 
teaches  us  to  know  how  to  think_correctly.  Evidently, 
then,  since  "an  art  teaches  us  to  do  and  a  science  to 
know,"1  and  by  studying  what  we  do  in  Argumentation 
we  come  to  know  the  laws  of  thought,  it  is  easy  to  draw 
/the  conclusions  (1)  that  Argumentation  is  the  art  of 
which  Logic  is  the  science ;  and  (2)  that,  since  Formal 
Logic  formulates  the  laws  of  thought,  giving  to  each  pro- 
\  cess  or  element  of  a  process  a  name,  Argumentation  may 
i  be  taught  solely  in  terms  of  Formal  Logic.  But  there 
are  objections  to  each  of  these  conclusions. 

1  This  and  the  preceding  definition  are  from  Jevons's  Lessons  in  Logic, 
p.  147. 


AR  G  U ME  NT  A  TWN.  1 5 

What  Argumentation  includes  besides  Logic. 

i.    Persuasive  Methods. 

In  the  first  place,  Argumentation  consists  in  something 
more  than  mere  reasoning.  If  we  confine  it  to  reasoning 
only,  we  have  examined  only  the  warp  of  the  material, 
overlooking  the  woof.  We  convince  by  cogent  reasoning, 
but  we  persuade  —  and  we  have  seen  that  in  good  argu- 
mentation, Conviction  and  Persuasion  are  almost  inex- 
tricably mingled  —  by  study  of  our  fellowmen  and  of  what 
stirs  emotion  in  them.  Though  we  ourselves  may  reason 
in  deciding  that  by  appealing,  in  a  particular  case,  to  some 
carefully  chosen  emotions  we  shall  get  desired  results,  it 
is  not  primarily  with  logical  processes  that  we  are  dealing 
here,  but  with  the  emotions.  We  are  concerned  now 
not  with  the  laws  that  tell  us  what  is  convincing,  what 
appeals  to  the  brain  with  success,  but  with  the  laws  that 
govern  the  emotions,  that  tell  us  how  to  appeal  to  the 
feelings  of  our  audience  without  falling  short  of  our 
desired  result  or  loosing  forces  that  we  shall  not  be  able 
to  control.  The  first  amcernsitself  with  men  as  thinking 
beings,  the  second  with  men  jas_creatur.ps  nf  art-inn 

The  extract  quoted  from  Grattan's  speech1  illustrates 
what  has  just  been  said.  The  peroration  is,  perhaps,  the 
most  effective  part  of  his  speech,  yet  it  produces  no 
arguments,  it  merely  appeals  to  the  emotions.  The 
knowledge  that  guided  the  speaker  in  this  part  of  his 
work  was  not  of  Logic,  of  sound  reasoning,  but  of  the 
hopes,  the  fears,  the  ambitions  stirring  in  the  hearts  of 
Irishmen  at  the  time,  and  of  the  ways  in  which  he  could 

1  See  pp.  4,  5. 


16  ARGUMENTATION. 

increase  the  hopes  and  ambitions  and  lessen  the  fears. 
To  say  that  he  thought  out  before  speaking  the  emotions 
to  which  he  should  appeal  in  his  peroration,  would  be, 
probably,  untrue,  for  the  impetus  of  his  great  subject  and 
his  strong  emotion  probably  led  him  into  it  almost  uncon- 
sciously. A  better  instance  of  the  persuasion  that  has 
behind  it  consideration  of  the  emotions  that  may  best  be 
appealed  to  and  may  best  be  disregarded  is  Beecher's 
"  Liverpool  Speech."  Beecher,  knowing  that  in  the 
English  headquarters  of  the  Southern  sympathizers, 
Liverpool,  a  determined  and  desperate  effort  would  be 
made  to  prevent  the  delivery  of  his  speech,  probably 
chose  with  some  care  the  emotions  to  which  he  appealed 
in  his  introduction.  Some  general  plan  for  it  he  prob- 
ably had  before  he  came  into  the  hall,  but  it  evidently 
took  permanent  shape  only  as  he  watched  the  uproarious 
audience.  For  the  first  few  minutes  after  the  uproar 
that  greeted  his  appearance  decreased  enough  to  allow 
him  to  speak,  he  simply  tried  to  win  a  hearing  by  making 
his  audience  feel  that  he  was  undaunted,  determined, 
sincere,  and  by  appealing  to  their  love,  as  Englishmen, 
of  fair  play.  He  chose  the  emotions  so  well,  he  appealed 
to  them  so  skillfully,  that  he  won  a  hearing.1 

2.    Tlie  Place  of  Rhetoric  in  Argumentation. 

Moreover,  a  pleader,  whatever  his  cause,  must  not  only 
reason  correctly  and  inidej^j^iid-iLQW- to__S-tir- the  emotions 
of  his  audience,  he  must  also_be  able  _so_to_JajTangc  his 
material  that  all  of  his  correctly  constructed  arguments, 
all  of  his  appeals,  direct  or  indirect,  to  the  emotions  of 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,  pp.  156-158. 


AK  G I  'ME  NT  A  TION.  1 7 

the  hearers  or  readers  are  presented  clearly,  forcibly,  and 
even  with  elegance.  A  set  of  arguments,  each  correctly 
constructed  in  itself,  appeals  that  mean  a  keen  insight 
into  the  causes  of  action  in  our  fellowmen,  may  be  so 
confusingly  stated,  so  badly  placed,  in  the  whole  argu- 
mentation, that  the  work  fails.  Logic  is  concerned  with 
the  internal  struclure  of  each  argument ;  Persuasion  with 
that  in  the  material  which  will  stir  the  emotions  of  an 
audience  ;  Argumentation  is  concerned  with  both  of  these, 
and  with  the  successful  presentation  to  an  audience  of 
the  correctly  constructed  arguments  and  well  selected 
appeals.  In  other  words,  a  successful  student  of  Argu- 
mentation must  have  mastered  the  rules  that  Rhetoric, 
the  "art  of  telling  some  one  else  in  words  exactly  what 
you  mean  to  say,"  l  has  to  give  him. 

Here  is  the  first  half  of  a  forensic  of  a  college  student 
which  shows  by  its  failures  how  important  in  Argumenta- 
tion is  the  work'  of  Rhetoric  : 

"WAS    THE    COURSE    OF    THE    BEACONSFIELD    MINISTRY    IN    THE 
EASTERN    QUESTION    ADVANTAGEOUS    TO    ENGLAND? 

"In  1876  Bulgaria  declared  war  against  Turkey,  and  it  was 
in  this  war  that  Turkey  committed  the  horrible  massacres 
known  as  the  'Bulgarian  Atrocities.' 

"The  war  would  never  have  been  begun  between  Turkey 
and  Bulgaria  had  it  not  been  for  Turkish  misrule,  which  was 
well  known  by  other  countries  as  well  as  by  Bulgaria.  Servia 
and  Montenegro  were  left  alone  to  fight  with  Turkey,  after  the 
other  states  which  belonged  to  the  'confederacy'  were  obliged 
to  back  out  for  want  of  supplies.     Of  course,  these  two  states 

h/ 

1  G.  R.  Carpenter,  Exercises  in  Rhetoric  and  English  Composition,  p.  1. 
Willard  Small,  Boston,  1893. 


IS  ARGUMENTATION. 

could  not  carry  on  war  with  Turkey  on  equal  footing,  and  soon 
a  treaty  for  peace  was  made. 

"  Now  Russia  put  herself  forward,  and  the  Czar  demanded 
a  treaty  which  much  favored  Bulgaria.  At  this  point  Beacons- 
field  recognized  the  fact  that  Russia  wanted  to  get  Turkey 
into  her  own  power,  and  thereby  enter  Constantinople,  which 
would  give  Russia  the  control  of  the  Black  Sea.  Therefore 
Beaconsfield  used  all  the  influence  he  could  to  preserve  peace 
between  Russia  and  Turkey. 

"  By  this  time  Russia  had  advanced  her  forces  as  far  as 
Adrianople. 

"Russia  claimed,  as  she  always  had,  that  she  was  looking 
after  the  interests  of  the  Christian  subjects  of  the  Sultan. 

"  Now  this  is  certainly  a  good,  charitable,  and  commendable 
purpose,  but  it  is  certain  that  there  was  a  deeper  motive  than 
this  which  made  Russia  so  anxious  to  interfere  with  Turkey, 
namely,  'Russia  wanted  control  of  Constantinople.' 

"  Beaconsfield  understood  this  to  be  Russia's  object,  and  he 
immediately  ordered  troops  to  be  placed  under  arms,  ready  to 
attack  Russia  at  any  moment ;  and  he  told  Russia  that  if  she 
advanced  further  than  Adrianople  he  would  consider  it  a 
casus  belli. 

"  Beaconsfield  wanted  to  hold  a  conference  of  the  Great 
Powers  of  Europe,  whose  decision  concerning  Turkey  should 
be  final.  But  Russia  would  not  agree  to  any  such  treaty  unless 
certain  agreements,  which  were  favorable  to  Russia,  made 
about  a  year  before,  should  be  adhered  to.  Beaconsfield,  on 
the  other  hand,  would  not  listen  to  Russia's  demand,  and,  for 
a  time,  it  seemed  as  though  war  was. certain.  But  by  a  private 
consultation  with  Russia,  Beaconsfield  got  Russia  to  agree  to 
a  treaty  at  Berlin."     Etc.,  etc. 

In  this  forensic,  though  the  writer  has  evidently  read  a 
little  on  his  subject  and  has  in  his  possession  the  causes 
giving  rise  to  the  question  and  the  idea  that  is  of  most 


ARGUMENTATION.  19 

importance  for  his  side  of  the  case  —  that  Russia  wished 
to  gain  control  of  Constantinople  and  the  Black  Sea  — 
we  do  not  understand,  because  he  has  neglected  all  the 
rules  for  clearness,  force,  and  elegance,  the  origin  of 
the  question,  exactly  what  is  in  dispute,  or  the  relative 
importance  of  the  ideas  advanced  and  their  connections. 

3.    The  Place  of  Rules  of  Evidence  in  Argumentation. 

Still  other  work  there  is,  too,  in  Argumentation.  When 
a  man  argues  he  produces  reasons  for  his  beliefs.  These, 
reasons  may  depend  on  his  own  thinking  or  experience, 
or  on  the  thinking  or  experience  of  some  one  else.  It  is 
evident  that  when  we  are  asked  to  consider  what  the 
speaker  or  writer  or  his  witness  has  thought,  we  can  test 
the  argument  by  laws  of  reasoning,  of  logic ;  but  when, 
as  is  often  the  case,  the  question  is  not  the  correctness 
of  a  logical  process  in  itself,  but  simply  the  reliability  of 
the  writer  or  witness,  —  is  there  any  reason  why  he  cannot 
be  trusted  as  to  the  facts  from  which  he  reasons,  —  plainly 
tests  not  merely  logical  must  be  applied.  Such  tests  for 
determining  the  reliability  of  a  witness  there  are,  and 
every  successful  writer  of  argumentation  must  know 
these. 

Lord  Erskine,  in  his  defense  of  Lord  George  Gordon, 
meeting  the  objection  of  the  Solicitor  General,  that  "fury 
supplies  arms  "  to  gatherings  without  weapons,  and  that, 
therefore,  even  when  unarmed,  an  excited  gathefing  may 
be  treasonable,  used  not  only  the  evidence  of  his  own 
thought  in  showing  the  distinction  between  the  case 
cited  by  the  Solicitor  General  and  that  of  Lord  Gordon, 
but  also  the  thought  of  Justices  Foster  and  Coke,  and  the 


20  ARGUMENTA  TIO.V. 

experience  of  Damaree,  who  had  been  arrested  for 
treason.1  As  far  as  he  used  the  thoughts  of  other  men, 
he  could  test  their  reasoning  by  laws  of  logic  ;  but  when 
he  used,  not  the  conclusions  that  men  drew  from  these 
experiences,  but  merely  their  statement  of  what  the  ex- 
periences were,  he  could  no  longer  apply  tests  of  logic, 
he  must,  in  questioning  whether  they  could  or  would 
tell  what  they  really  saw  or  did,  test  character,  will,  and 
intellect.  For  these  the  tests  must  be  very  different. 
When  he  examined  the  evidence  of  William  Hay  against 
Lord  Gordon  it  was  a  test  of  Hay's  desire  to  speak  the  truth 
that  he  chiefly  applied.2  We  must  learn,  then,  not  only 
how  to  attack  incorrect  drawing  of  conclusions  from  data 
given,  but  how  to  test  whether  the  data  are  correctly 
reported. 

The  Relations  of  the  Four  Divisions. 

Clearly,  then,  knowledge  how  to  distinguish  good  from 
bad  reasoning,  Logic,  — Sthc  formulation  of  which  with 
carefully  selected  names ''for 'all  the  processes  and  their 
I  elements  constitutes  Formal  Logic,. —  is  but  the  warp 
which  runs  through  the  cloth  of  Argumentation  ;  and 
knowledge  of  the  rules  of  Persuasion,  of  Rhetoric,  and  of 
Evidence  are  the  threads  of  the  woof.  Even  as  the  warp 
mingles  with  the  woof,  so  it  is  by  careful  reasoning  that 
each  of  these  special  sets  of  rules  is  applied  to  the  case 
in  hand.  Therefore,  Argumentation  means  much  more 
than  the  mere  application  of  the  laws  of  Logic. 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  100-103. 

2  Idem,  pp.  1 1 1-1 1 5.  Hfe* 


ARGVMENTA  TION. 


Why  a  Knowledge  of  Formal^ Logic  is  not  Essential 
to  Careful  Study  of  Argumentation. 

The  First  Reason.  —  Since,  then,  Logic  is  but  the 
warp  of  Argumentation,  it  hardly  seems  probable  that 
to  teach  it  only  in  terms  of  Formal  Logic  will  be 
satisfactory.  That  would  mean  neglect  of  all  that 
makes  the  woof.  But  there  are  other  objections  to 
considering  preliminary  study  of  Formal  Logic  as  an 
essential  to  good  argumentation.  You  cannot,  of  course, 
study  why  some  reasoning  is  good  and  some  bad  v 
without  getting  a  knowledge  of  Logic,1  and,  therefore, 
it  is  an  important  part  of  all  argumentation ;  but  you 
can  study  why  some  reasoning  is  good  and  some  bad 
with  but  very  slight  use  of  the  technical  names  and 
symbols  that  have  been  agreed  upon  as  convenient  by 
scholars  of  Logic  for  its  own  sake,  as  a  science.  That 
is,  with  the  nomenclature,  the  distinctions,  of  the  sci- 
entific formulation  of  the  laws  of  reasoning,  a  student 
of  Argumentation  needs  to  trouble  himself  but  little. 
Indeed,  there  are  strong  objections  to  his  preparing  him- 
self by  study  of  Formal  Logic.  The  first  reason  Professor 
Sidgwick  states  as  follows  : 

"  The  subject  that  is  usually  taught  as  Logic  [in  this  book 
called  Formal  Logic]  gives  little  or  no  help  in  regard  to  the 
actual  difficulties  of  reasoning,  or  as  to  the  sources  of  the  more 
plausible  kinds  of  error  and  verbal  confusion.  As  a  historical 
study  it  may  have  great  value  —  for  the  few  who  have  time  to 
pursue  it  as  a  part  of  the  general  history  of  philosophy.     As  a 

1  "  Logic  is  all  about  arguments,  and  helps  us  to  distinguish  sound  argu- 
ments from  unsound  ones."  A.  Sidgwick,  The  Process  of  Argument,^.  2. 
A.  &  C.  Black,  1S93. 


22  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

mental  exercise  it  may  or  may  not  be  as  good  as  a  game  of 
chess.  But  for  the  purpose  here  kept  in  view  —  of  gaining 
some  insight  into  the  distinction  between  sound  and  unsound 
inference1  —  it  is  an  open  question  whether  the  good  or  the 
harm  it  does  is  the  greater.  Taken  as  a  whole,  it  is  an  accumu- 
lation of  odds  and  ends  that  have  survived  from  various  out- 
grown philosophies ;  and  so  far  as  it  does  deal  with  the  dis- 
tinction between  sound  and  unsound  inferences,  it  introduces 
an  artificial  simplification  of  the  difficulties  in  too  unyielding  a 
form.  For  it  tells  us  only  what  the  soundness  of  inferences 
depends  upon  when  we  assume  that  the  words  in  which  they 
arc  expressed  are  free  from  ambiguity.  In  actual  inferences 
this  assumption  is  never  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  facts, 
and  is  least  in  accordance  with  them  when  the  soundness  of 
the  inference  is  most  debatable.  That  is  the  chief  reason  why 
an  appeal  to  Syllogistic  Logic  is  generally  so  unconvincing. 
Now  that  the  direct  inquiry  into  Nature  is  open  to  almost  every 

1  "  The  formation  of  a  belief  or  opinion,  not  as  directly  observed,  but 
as  constrained  by  observations  made  of  other  matters  or  beliefs  already 
adopted;  also  the  system  of  propositions  or  proofs  connected  together  by 
such  an  act  into  a  proposition."  Century  Dictionary.  When  we  make  the 
statement,  "All  sixpences  are  coined  at  Tower  Hill "  (see  Jevons's  Primer oj 
Logic,  p.  53)  we  reached  this  opinion  by  inference,  for  it  is  not  made  from 
personal  observation  of  the  coining  of  all  the  coins,  but  from  knowledge 
of  two  other  matters :  that  all  English  silver  coins  are  coined  at  Tower 
Hill;  and  that  all  sixpences  are  English  silver  coins.  It  will  be  seen,  as 
our  definition  of  an  inference  stated,  that  we  have  a  system  of  two  proposi- 
tions (sentences)  which  produce  a  third.  That  is,  we  have  a  syllogism. 
"The  essential  parts  of  a  'syllogism'  are  short  sentences  (or  assertions) 
of  which  one  is  a  'conclusion'  from  the  other  two,  these  others  being 
called  the  'premises.'  The  relation  between  premises  and  conclusions  is 
such  that  the  latter  is  contained  (implied  or  involved)  in  the  meaning  of 
the  former  when  these  are  taken  together.  But  it  is  also  essential  to  a 
syllogism  that  one  of  the  premises  shall  be  a  generalization  —  the  assertion 
of  a  general  rule  —  while  the  other  premises  must  connect  the  conclusion 
with  it,  as  a  special  case  under  that  general  rule."  Sidgwick,  pp.  219,  220. 
The  syllogism  used  above  from  Jevons's  Primer  of  Logic  illustrates  all  of 
these  distinctions. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  23 

one,  almost  every  one  has  begun  to  learn  that  sharp-cut  words 
are  traps  for  the  unwary.  A  Syllogism  can  always  be  blocked 
by  refusing  to  admit  the  truth  of  a  premise  ;x  and  in  these  times 
no  special  study  of  the  forms  of  the  Syllogism  is  needed  to 
show  us  (in  practice,  at  any  rate)  that  the  easiest  and  most 
effective  way  to  do  this  is  to  criticise  the  words  in  which  it  is 
expressed.  When  the  conclusion  is  disputable,  there  is  seldom 
any  difficulty  in  finding  some  want  of  deflniteness  in  the  prem- 
ises, so  that  they  can  only  combine  to  form  a  conclusion  when 
one  of  them  is  interpreted  in  a  sense  which  makes  it  untrue. 
To  raise  this  objection,  in  however  untechnical  language,  is  to 
tell  the  syllogistic  logician  that  his  simple  process  is  not  yet 
available.  The  real  difficulty  of  the  question  has  first  to  be 
settled,  and  then  those  who  care  to  do  so  may  put  the  reason- 
ing into  syllogistic  form."  2 

These  words  of  Professor  Sidgwick  but  emphasize 
what  has  already  been  said  about  the  fourfold  work  of 
Argumentation.  When  he  states  that  we  may  always 
block  a  syllogism  by  denying,  the  truth  of  a  premise,  he 
but  says  that  from  our  knowledge  of  what  makes  good 
and  bad  evidence,  not  in  its  reasoning,  but  in  its  report 
of  the  so-called  facts  from  which  the  reasoning  starts, 
we  may  decide  that  the  important  premise  cannot  be 
accepted.  Here  we  work  not  in  Logic  but  in  the  rules 
of  evidence  which  teach  us  to  know  whether  a  witness 
is  reliable,  intelligent,  or  prejudiced.  When,  too,  he  says 
that  we  can  often  best  determine  what  is  the  matter  with 
a  premise  by  examining  the  words  in  which  it  is  phrased, 

1  If,  for  instance,  any  one  denies,  in  the  illustration  used  to  explain 
inference,  that  all  English  silver  coins  are  coined  at  Tower  Hill  or  that  all 
sixpences  are  English  silver  coins,  then,  of  course,  the  conclusion  does  not 
follow. 

2  Sidgwick,  The  Process  of  Argument,  pp.  74-76. 


24  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

he  takes  us  into  another  field  of  Argumentation,  the 
rhetorical,  and  bids  us  apply  the  rules  given  us  to 
produce  clearness  in  our  work. 

The  Second  Reason.  —  It  is,  of  course,  evident  that  we 
must  have  some  names  for  the  processes  of  thought 
which  we  shall  use,  but  for  a  reason  stated  by  Professor 
Sidgwick  —  the  second  reason  why  Formal  Logic  is  of 
but  little  use  to  the  practical  student  of  Argumentation 
—  we  shall  use  as  few  as  possible. 

"Almost  every  one  would  admit  that  the  technical  terms  of 
what  is  usually  taught  as  Logic  [i.e.,  Formal  Logic]  are  to  a 
great  extent  survivals  from  philosophies  now  very  largely  super- 
seded. As  exercises  for  the  student's  memory,  and  as  affording 
material  for  examination  questions,  they  may  still  have  a  value. 
To  the  thorough-going  student  of  the  history  of  philosophy 
they  will  probably  always  be  interesting.  But  for  any  other 
purpose,  except  that  of  causing  confusion  and  hindering  prog- 
ress in  a  subject  which  is  difficult  enough  even  without  them, 
they  have  long  been  losing  the  value  they  formerly  had.  *  Logic ' 
[Formal  Logic]  bristles  with  terms  which  have  gradually  sunk 
out  of  use." 

"  The  best  reform  we  can  propose  is  to  follow  the  practice 
of  common  sense,  and  drop  'these  technicalities'  quietly  out  of 
remembrance.  In  order  to  do  this  we  need  not  know  before- 
hand precisely  what  they  are.  We  need  only  adopt  the  simple 
rule  that  the  first  question  to  be  asked  regarding  any  logical 
technicality  is,  What  is  its  actual  value  in  helping  us  to  under- 
stand the  process  of  argument  ?"  l 

We  shall,  then,  with  this  preliminary  analysis  of  the 
field  of  Argumentation,  study  Logic  only  in  its  practical 
application  in    controversy   of   whatever    kind.     Applied 

1  Sidgwick,  The  Process  of  Argument,  pp.  199,  200. 


ARGUMENTATION.  25 

Logic,  we  may  call  it,  in  contradistinction  to  Formal 
Logic,  logic  treated  as  a  science,  which  we  shall  neglect, 
except  as  we  borrow  a  few  terms  from  it. 

There  are  Two  Main  Kinds  of  Argumentation. 

Argumentation  in  general  naturally  divides  into  two 
kinds  —  that  which  is  written,  and  that  which  is  spoken. 
Even  as  the  first  division,  broadly  considered,  may 
include  the  hastily  written  note  urging  a  friend  for 
certain  stated  reasons  to  do  this  or  that ;  the  speech, 
carefully  written  out  beforehand  and  delivered  from  well- 
arranged  notes  ;  or  the  carefully  pondered  article  on  a 
scientific,  historical,  or  purely  literary  subject ;  so  the 
second  may  extend  from  the  mere  controversial  chat 
between  friends,  through  the  delivery  from  memory  of  a 
carefully  prepared  speech,  to  a  masterly  extemporaneous 
argumentation.  It  is  at  once  evident  that  the  two  divi- 
sions sometimes  overlap,  or  that  we  should,  perhaps,  make 
a  middle  division  for  the  argumentation  that  is  first  care- 
carefully  written  out  and  then  committed  to  memory  or 
reduced  to  a  neat  but  brief  set  of  notes  from  which  the 
author  can  speak  apparently  extemporaneously.  Indeed, 
Argumentation  that  does  not  rest  on  preparatory  written 
work  is  exceedingly  rare,  except  as  men  meet  informally 
at  the  houses  of  friends,  at  clubs,  or  in  the  streets. 
Evidently,  then,  if  we  study  the  laws  of  Argumentative 
Composition, —  whatever  in  Logic,  in  Rhetoric,  in  methods 
of  Persuasion,  in  rules  of  Evidence  we  must  understand, 
if  we  are  to  write  well  argumentation  that  is  to  be  printed, 
or  delivered  before  an  audience, —  we  shall  have  mastered 
all  that  we  need  to  know  of  successful  Argumentation  in 


26  ARGUMENTATION. 

general,  except  what  an  art  which  has  nothing  to  do  with 
Argumentative  Composition,  but  is  indispensable  to  the 
speaker,  Elocution,  has  to  offer.  That  art  teaches  us 
how  to  speak,  to  stand,  to  gesticulate.  It  lies,  however, 
outside  the  field  of  a  book  like  this,  and  our  study  will  be 
confined  to  Aigunientative  Composition  —  to  Argumen- 
tation that  is  written.  We  shall  consider  spoken  Ar- 
gumentation only  when  the  rules  that  underlie  the  two 
divisions  are  the  same. 

The  Relation  of  Argumentative  Composition  to 
Rhetoric. 

x^j  Since  a  knowledge  of  Rhetoric  —  of  the  laws  of  clear- 
ness, force,  and  elegance  in  style,  and  of  the  use  of 
Description,  Narration,  and  Exposition  —  is  essential  to 
strong  Argumentation,  and  since  the  greater  part  of  all 
argumentation  is  in  its  first  or  its  final  form  written  work, 
Argumentative  Composition,  we  see  why  Argumentation 
is  included  in  a  course  in  Rhetoric.  It  is  studied  late  in 
the  course,  because  as  a  subject  it  is  more  regularly 
inclusive  than  the  other  chief  divisions  —  Description 
(which  "produces  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  a  picture  of 
certain  objects  or  persons"),  Narration  (which  " gives  an 
account  of  an  event  or  a  series  of  events"),  and  Exposi- 
tion (which  "explains  the  theory  underlying  a  group  of 
connected  facts"),1  and  depends  on  the  aid  of  all  of  these 
to  produce  the  effects  it  aims  at.  The  interdependence 
of  these  kinds  of  composition  and  the  inclusiveness  of 
Argumentative  Composition  will  probably  best  be  ex- 
plained by  an  illustration. 

1  Introduction  to  Theme  Writing.     J.  B.  Fletcher  and  G.  R.  Carpenter. 
Allyn  &  Bacon.     1894.     p.  2. 


ARGUMENTATION.  27 

Erskine,  in  his  defense  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  very 
early  expounded  the  law  of  treason ;  in  applying  it  to  the 
case  before  him,  he  narrated  the  history  of  the  Protestant 
Association ;  he  described  the  conduct  of  the  witnesses  in 
giving  their  evidence,  and,  in  their  words,  the  events  of 
the  day  of  the  riots.  That  is,  in  order  to  prove  that  Lord 
George  Gordon  was  not  guilty  of  treason,  he  repeatedly 
made  use  of  the  three  other  methods  of  expression  — 
Description,  Narration,  and  Exposition. 


The  Purpose  of  this  Book. 

The  object  of  this  book,  then,  is  threefold.  First,  it 
aims  to  show  a  student  how,  if  need  be,  he  may  hope  to 
produce  in  the  mind  of  some  one  else  a  belief  in  the  truth 
of  the  ideas  which  he  holds  to  be  true,  to  show  how  he 
may  best  convince  and  persuade  his  hearer  or  reader  of 
the  truth  of  his  words.  The  student,  depending  on  a 
knowledge  of  Rhetoric  as  far  as  it  concerns  Description, 
Narration,  Exposition,  and  the  laws  of  clearness,  force, 
and  elegance,  which  has  previously  been  gained,  is 
to  examine  how  these  kinds  of  composition  aid  in  argu- 
mentative work,  how  the  laws  of  clearness,  force,  and 
elegance  apply  to  it.  He  is  to  consider  carefully  why 
one  kind  of  reasoning  is  good  and  another  bad,  i.e.,  is  to 
study  Logic,  which  will  prepare  him  by  experience  for  an 
intelligent  later  study,  if  he  wishes,  of  Formal  Logic,  — 
which  tabulates  and  names  the  processes  and  elements  of 
processes  of  reasoning  that  are  the  warp  of  any  argumen- 
tation. He  is  to  study,  also,  what  makes  good  and  what 
bad  evidence  apart  from  its  logical  convincingness,  is  to 
gain  the   knowledge  of  fundamental  distinctions  in  evi- 


28  ARGUMENTATION. 

dence  that  must  precede  any  study  by  him  of  the  special 
rules  for  the  interpretation  of  evidence  that  have  grown 
up  in  the  courts  and  are  applicable  only  in  them.  Lastly, 
he  is  to  study  what  are  the  established  rules  of  Persua- 
sion, in  what  ways  he  may  most  readily  and  most  effect- 
ively move  men  on  the  subject  he  is  treating. 

As  has  been  already  pointed  out,  the  student,  too,  who 
does  not  enter  into  debate  with  any  fellow-being,  but 
strives  to  form  deliberately  a  correct  judgment  oh  some 
question  in  his  special  field  of  work  or  on  some  topic  of 
the  hour,  can,  in  avoiding  pitfalls  left  in  his  path  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously  by  others  or  prepared  for  him 
by  his  own  lack  of  training  in  argumentation,  make  use  of 
the  rules  and  suggestions  to  be  given  in  this  book.  It  is 
against  the  frame  of  mind  —  altogether  too  frequent  in 
college  students  —  criticised  by  Cardinal  Newman  in  the 
following  extract  that  this  little  book  is  particularly 
directed: 

"  What  is  more  common  than  the  sight  of  grown  men, 
talking  on  political  or  moral  or  religious  subjects,  in  that  off- 
hand, idle  way,  which  we  signify  by  the  word  unreal  1  'That 
they  simply  do  not  know  what  they  are  talking  about '  is  the 
spontaneous,  silent  remark  of  any  man  of  sense  who  heard 
them.  Hence  such  persons  have  no  difficulty  in  contradicting 
themselves  in  successive  sentences,  without  being  conscious  of 
it.  Hence  others,  whose  defect  in  intellectual  training  is  more 
latent,  have  their  most  unfortunate  crotchets,  as  they  are  called, 
or  hobbies,  which  deprive  them  of  the  influence  which  their 
estimable  qualities  would  otherwise  secure.  Hence  others  can 
never  look  straight  before  them,  never  see  the  point,  and  have 
no  difficulties  in  the  most  difficult  subjects.  Others  are  hope- 
lessly obstinate  and  prejudiced,  and,  after  they  have  been 
driven  from  their  opinions,  return  to  them  the  next  moment 


A RGUMENTA  TION.  29 

without  even  an  attempt  to  explain  why.  Others  are  so  intem- 
perate and  intractable  that  there  is  no  greater  calamity  for  a 
good  cause  than  that  they  should  get  hold  of  it.  It  is  very 
plain  from  the  very  particulars  I  have  mentioned  that,  in  this 
delineation  of  intellectual  infirmities,  I  am  drawing  .  .  .  from 
the  world  at  large ;  I  am  referring  to  an  evil  which  is  forced 
upon  us  in  every  railway  carriage,  in  every  coffee-room  or 
table-(Vhbte,  in  every  mixed  company. 

"When  the  intellect  has  once  been  properly  trained  and 
formed  to  have  a  connected  view  or  grasp  of  things,  it  will  dis- 
play its  powers  with  mope  or  less  effect  according  to  its  partic- 
ular quality  and  capacity  in  the  individual.  In  the  case  of  most 
men  it  makes  itself  felt  in  the  good  sense,  sobriety  of  .thought, 
reasonableness,  candour,  self-command,  and  steadiness  of  view, 
which  characterize  it.  In  some  it  will  have  developed  habits 
of  business,  power  of  influencing  others,  and  sagacity.  In 
others  it  will  elicit  the  talent  of  philosophical  speculation,  and 
lead  the  mind  forward  to  eminence  in  this  or  that  intellectual 
department.  In  all  it  will  be  a  faculty  of  entering  with  com- 
parative ease  into  any  subject  of  thought,  and  of  taking  up 
with  aptitude  any  science  or  profession."1 

In  brief,  then,  this  book  aims  to  aid  college  stu- 
dents in  acquiring  the  ability  to  make  "an  instinctive, 
just  estimate  of  things  as  they  pass  before  them, — 
sometimes  a  natural  gift,  but  commonly  not  gained  with- 
out much  effort  and  the  exercise  of  years."  2 

1  Newman,  Idea  of  University.  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.  1888.  Preface, 
pp.  xvii-xviii. 

~  Idem,  p.  xvi. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ANALYSIS. 

Three  Conditions  Necessary  for  Successful 
Argumentation. 

IN  order  to  argue  clearly  three  conditions  are  absolutely 
necessary:  to  know  (i)  What  the  question  means; 
(2)  What  you  believe  about  it,  and  why;  (3)  How  you  are 
to  state  your  case  so  that  (a)  you  shall  convince,  and  (b) 
persuade.  To  know  what  the  question  to  be  discussed 
means  has  two  significations  :  to  know  just  what  is  the 
point  in  dispute,  the  idea  about  which  the  essential  differ- 
ence of  opinion  arises ;  and  to  know  what  is  the  work  to 
be  done,  what  ideas  must  be  proved  true,  if  a  conclusion  in 
favor  of  one  side  or  the  other  is  to  be  reached. 

Analysis,  the  First  Great  Division  of  Argumentative 
Composition. 

To  find  out  what  the  real  point  in  dispute  is,  we  must 
carefully  examine  the  material  we  can  collect  in  regard  to 
the  subject,  and  by  placing  on  one  side  all  the  ideas  upon 
which  our  opponent  admits  his  readiness  to  agree  with 
us;  by  excluding  bit  by  bit  all  ideas  that  must  be  admitted 
to  be  irrelevant;  by  subordinating  what  is  less  important 
to  what  is  more  so;  reach  the  pivotal  idea  or  ideas.  That 
is,  to  find  just  what  is  the  question,  we  must  analyze  care- 
fully, for  analysis  is  a  "  process  of  exclusion  for  a  central 


ARGUMENTATION.  -J    31 

idea"  or  ideas.  If,  too,  we  are  to  decide  what  is  the  work 
to  be  done  in  order  to  establish  one  side  or  the  other  of 
the  question  as  true,  we  must  decide,  after  we  have  sep- 
arated the  disputable  matter  essential  to  the  discussion 
from  what  is  admitted  by  both  sides  and  from  what  is 
extraneous,  just  the  relation  that  the  facts  of  this  remain- 
ing material  bear  to  one  another.  Doing  this,  we  shall 
see  what  subordinate  ideas  must  be  established  as  true 
before  main  ideas  may  be  accepted  as  trustworthy,  before 
by  use  of  these  main  ideas  we  can  show  that  the  chief 
idea  of  all  is  worthy  of  acceptance.  The  process  by  which 
we  find  these  natural  inter-relations  of  the  material  — 
what  may  be  called  the  primary  or  inherent  structure  — 
is  again  analysis.  It  becomes  clear,  therefore,  that  the 
first  of  the  great  divisions  of  Argumentative  Composition 
which  we  must  study  is  Analysis. 

Study  of  the  Rules  of  Evidence  is  the  Second  Main 
Division  of  Argumentative  Composition. 

As  Analysis  leads  us  to  know  what  the  question  means, 
so  study  of  evidence,  or  whatever  seems  to  support  or  to 
overcome  any  of  the  ideas  that  deserve  a  place  in  our 
discussion,  shows  us — as  it  convinces  or  fails  to  convince 
us  —  what  we  believe  about  the  central  idea.  The  rules 
and  suggestions  that  may  help  us  in  finding  and  in  select- 
ing evidence,  make,  therefore,  the  second  of  the  great 
divisions  of  Argumentative  Composition  which  we  must 
study. 


32  A  KG  U ME  NT  A  TION. 

Rhetorical    Structure    and    Persuasion    the    Two 
Parts    of    the    Third    Great    Division. 

When,  however,  we  know  by  analysis  what  the  ques- 
tion is,  what  relations  the  ideas  to  be  considered  bear  to 
one  another,  and  what  is  the  evidence  upon  which  we 
rest  our  belief,  we  still  need  to  study  how  we  may  best 
put  this  question  and  its  supporting  evidence  before  a 
hearer  or  reader  so  as  to  (a)  convince  and  (b)  persuade 
him.  Plainly  enough,  there  must  be  certain  laws  as~ 
to  clearness,  force,  and  elegance,  —  rhetorical  laws  of 
structure  and  of  style,  — which  will  aid  us  in  (a).  Clearly, 
too,  there  are  laws  which  will  guide  us  in  appealing 
directly  or  indirectly  to  the  emotions  of  our  hearers. 
Rhetorical  Structure,  then,  corresponds  to  (a)  and  Per- 
suasion to  (b)>  and  we  now  see  what  are  the  remaining 
two  great  divisions  under  which  it  is  convenient  to  treat 
Argumentative  Composition. 

It  is  because  men  neglect,  in  their  arguing,  one  or  all 
of  these  four  divisions  of  Argumentation  that  we  hear  so 
much  wrangling,  read  so  many  discussions,  which  come  to 
naught,  that  "a  vague  tendency  and  a  loose  approximation 
to  what  is  right  is  all  that  we  can  hope  for  from  miscel- 
laneous public  opinion." 1  It  is  under  these  headings 
that  we  shall  consider  Argumentative  Composition. 

upon, 

The  First  Step  in  Analysis. 

As  has  been  said,  the  first  work  of  Analysis  is  tQ_finri 
out  what  is  the  real  pojnt^at  issn&.  on  what  it  is  that  the 
basal  difference  of  opinion  rests.     There  are  several  pos- 

1  Bagehot's  Works,  The  Age  of  Discussion. 


ARGUMENTATION.  33 

sible  subordinate  steps  in  this  work.  The  first  is  to  see 
that  you  have  as  the  subject  for  your  discussion  not  a  term, 
the  name  of  a  thing  or  quality,  as  horse,  honesty,1 — but  a 
proposition  —  an  assertion  in  regard  to  a  term  or  terms; 
for  instance,  "  Electricity  will  eventually  displace  the  horse 
as  a  means  of  locomotion;  Honesty  is  the  chief  essential 
of  character."  2  "^Vhen  we  join  terms  together,  we  make 
a  proposition ;  when  we  join  propositions  together,  we 
make  an  argument,  or  piece  of  reasoning";3  when  we 
join  the  arguments,  or  pieces  of  reasoning,  together,  we 
have  Argumentation. 

Why  we  cannot  argue  a  Term. 

The  necessity  for  finding  a  proposition  as  the  subject 
to  debate  will  be  clear  if  once  more,  for  a  moment,  we 
examine  the  nature  of  Argumentation.  We  have  defined 
Argumentation  as  the  art  of  producing  in  the  mind  of 
some  one  else  a  belief  in  the  ideas  which  the  writer  or 

1  "  A  logical  term  may  consist  of  any  number  of  nouns,  substantive  or 
objective,  with  the  articles,  prepositions,  and  conjunctions  required  to  join 
them  together;  still  it  is  only  one  term  if  it  points  out,  or  makes  us  think 
of  a  single  object  or  collection,  or  class  of  objects."  Primer  of  Logic, 
Jevons,  p.  1 5-  A  horse,  one  animal  ;  the  horse,  the  genus  ;  the  Aleutian 
Islands;  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  ;  each  of  these  is  a  term. 

2  It  should  be  noted  here  that  it  is  often  convenient  to  take  as  a  heading 
in  a  controversial  article  a  question,  as,  "  Will  electricity  eventually  displace 
the  horse  as  a  means  of  locomotion  ? "  for  this  permits  a  writer,  if  he  feels 
that  there  is  prejudice  against  him,  or  if  for  any  reason  an  appearance  of 
complete  impartiality  may  best  be  given  the  article,  to  hold  back  his  own 
conclusion,  and  not  to  commit  himself  until  the  audience  is  quite  ready. 
It  must  be  clear,  however,  that  what  the  writer  really  treats  is  either  "Elec- 
tricity will  ultimately  displace  the  horse,"  etc.,  or  "Electricity 'will  not  even- 
tually displace  the  horse,"  an  assertion  in  either  case. 

3  Jevons's  Primer  of  Logic,  p.  12. 


34  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

speaker  wishes  the  reader  or  hearer  to  accept.  A  belief 
about  something  is  a  feeling,  however  produced,  that  this 
"something"  is  true  or  false;  the  right  or  the  wrong 
thing  to  do ;  interesting  or  unworthy  our  attention,  etc. ; 
in  brief,  is  the  acceptance  of  some  statement  about  the 
"something"  in  past,  present,  or  future  time.  For  instance, 
in  treating  of  Parochial  Schools  argumentatively,  we  do 
not  merely  describe  the  term  Parochial  Schools,  narrate 
about  the  term,  expound  the  theory  underlying  the  term; 
we  try  to  make  our  reader  or  hearer  believe  that  Parochial 
Schools  are  correct  in  theory,  have  done  much  good,  should 
be  encouraged,  or  the  opposites  ;  i.e.t  we  try  to  make  the 
hearer  or  reader  accept  as  true  some  statement  about  the 
term  Parochial  Schools.  In  other  words,  since  we  treat  a 
statement  in  regard  to  a  term,  we  treat  a  proposition. 
For  a  start  in  Description,  Narration,  Exposition,  a  term 
is  enough  ;  and  as  we  regard  it  from  one  point  of  view  or 
another,  we  describe,  narrate  or  expound  it,  but  we  cannot 
in  Argumentation  start  with  a  term;  we  must  first  formu- 
late some  proposition  in  regard  to  it.  We  can  describe 
Harvard  College,  Boston  Common,  the  Yale-Harvard  boat- 
race,  i.e.,  can  give  a  picture  to  another  person  of  what 
these  terms  stand  for;  can  write  a  narrative  about  any  of 
the  terms,  i.e.,  can  give  a  history  of  Harvard  College,  of 
the  Boston  Common,  of  the  Yale-Harvard  boat-race  as  an 
annual  occurrence  ;  we  can  expound  the  theory  of  educa- 
tion for  which  Harvard  College  stands,  the  theory  which 
gave  being  to  and  has  maintained  Boston  Common  as  a 
public  pleasure-ground,  the  theory  of  athletics  which  per- 
mits the  annual  recurrence  of  the  Yale-Harvard  races. 

In   all   this   work  we  have   treated   only  of  the  terms 
regarded  from  different  points  of  view.     If,  however,  we 


ARGUMENTATION.  35 

wish  to  argue,  we  must  first  formulate  some  proposition 
about  each  of  the  terms ;  for  instance,  that  Harvard  Col- 
lege should,  for  purposes  of  government  of  the  students, 
be  divided,  on  the  Oxford  plan,  into  several  smaller  col- 
leges; that  Boston  Common  should  forever  be  protected 
from  the  greed  of  corporations;  that  the  Yale-Harvard 
races  show  the  superiority  of  the  Yale  stroked  etc.  When 
Lord  Erskine l  made  his  great  defense  oFXord  George 
Gordon,  charged  with  high  treason,  he  did  not  argue  the 
term  Lord  George  Gordon  nor  the  term  high  treason;  he 
did  argue  the  question,  the  proposition,  Is  Lord  George 
Gordon  guilty  of  treason  ? 

A  Possible  Confusion. 

To  argue  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  term  is  not  to  argue  a 
term.  — Just  here,  it  may  be  necessary  to  warn  a  beginner 
in  Argumentation  against  a  possible  confusion.  He  has 
just  been  told  that  we  cannot  argue  a  term,  that  Lord 
Erskine  did  not  argue  "high  treason,"  yet  in  the  speech 
to  which  he  is  referred,  he  will  find  that  Lord  Erskine 
spends  a  large  part  of  his  opening  words  in  showing  that 
the  meaning  of  "high  treason"  is  (i)  to  compass  or  imagine 
the  death  of  the  king  (which  does  not  apply  in  the  case  in 
question),  or  (2)  to  levy  war  against  him  in  his  realm  by 
premeditated  open  acts  of  violence,  hostility,  and  force; 
that  an  act  of  treason  must  be  open,  immediate,  unambig- 
uous, that  "Nothing  out  of  that  plain  letter  should  be 
brought  within  the  pale  of  treason  by  inference  or  con- 
struction." Here,  certainly,  Lord  Erskine  seems,  at  first 
sight,  to  argue  a  term.     More  careful  thinking,  however, 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  86-153. 


36  ARG  UMENTA  T/OJV. 

will  show  us  that  we  do  not  argue  the  term  until  we  have 
made  a  proposition  about  it.  The  Attorney-General  had, 
in  his  speech  preceding  Lord  Erskine's,  contended  that 
the  overt  acts  of  Lord  George  Gordon  might  fairly  be 
construed  into  a  treasonable  design,  i.e.,  had  said,  or 
implied,  that  the  definition  of  high  treason  might  be  any 
act  which  may  be  construed  into  levying  war  against  the 
king.  This  implied  or  stated  proposition  that  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  may  be  that  given  by  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, Lord  Erskine  took  as  one  of  the  subordinate  propo- 
sitions that  must  be  settled  before  he  could  consider  his 
main  thesis.  We  may  often  find  it  necessary  to  argue  as 
to  the  meaning  of  a  term,  but  that  is  not  to  argue  a  term, 
for  that  about  which  we  really  argue  is  always  an  implied 
or  stated  proposition  that  the  meaning  of  the  termor  is y. 

The  Way  tn  which  the  Danger  of  Treating  a 
Term  instead  of  a  Proposition  arises. 

Such  explanation  that  to  argue  a  term  is  impossible, 
that  we  must  first  formulate  a  proposition  in  regard  to 
it,  may  seem  unnecessary,  but  one  of  the  commonest 
errors  of  beginners  in  Argumentative  Composition 
arises  from  a  failure  to  understand  this.  A  student 
who  has  seen  much  mention  in  the  newspapers  or  peri- 
odicals of  the  Bluefield's  Affair,  the  Japanese  in  Corea, 
the  Income  Tax,  Aerial  Flight,  all  of  them  terms  only,  is 
eager  to  write  his  argumentative  work  on  one  of  these 
subjects,  about  which  he  knows  a  little  and  wishes  to 
know  more.  When  pressed,  however,  to  state  what  it  is 
that  he  wishes  to  support  or  to  defend  as  his  thesis  about 
the  subject,  he  confesses  that  as  yet  he  knows  too- little 


ARG  UMENTA  1 YOA r.  3  7 

of  the  subjects  to  say.  His  first  step,  then,  should  be  by 
thinking  over  carefully  what  he  already  knows  in  regard 
to  the  question  and  by  careful  reading  on  the  subject,  to 
decide  what  it  is  that  he  wishes  to  make  his  proposition 
in  regard  to  the  subject  that  interests  him.  Until  he  has 
done  this,  he  cannot  safely  write  a  word.  If  without  such 
thought  to  find  a  proposition  to  discuss,  he  tries,  after  he 
has  read  to  some  extent  on  any  of  the  subjects  named,  to 
write  an  argument  about  one  of  them,  his  result  —  too 
often  seen  in  the  so-called  forensic  work  of  college  students 
—  will  be  not  unlike  this  burlesque  of  a  school-boy's 
argument. 

Fortes  Fortuna  Adjuvat. 

" '  Of  all  the  uncertain  and  capricious  powers  which  rule  our 
earthly  destiny  Fortune  is  the  chief.  Who  has  not  heard  of 
the  poor  being  raised  up,  and  the  rich  being  laid  low?  Alexander 
the  Great  said  he  envied  Diogenes  in  his  tub,  because  Diogenes 
could  have  nothing  less.  We  need  not  go  far  for  an  instance 
of  fortune.  Who  was  so  great  as  Nicholas,  the  Czar  of  all  the 
Russians,  a  year  ago,  and  now  he  is  "fallen,  fallen  from  his 
high  estate,  without  a  friend  to  grace  his  obsequies."  The  Turks 
are  the  finest  specimens  of  the  human  race,  yet  they,  too,  have 
experienced  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune.  Horace  says  that  we 
should  wrap  ourselves  in  our  virtue  when  fortune  changes. 
Napoleon,  too,  shows  us  how  little  we  can  rely  on  fortune;  but 
his  faults,  great  as  they  were,  are  being  redeemed  by  his  nephew, 
Louis  Napoleon,  who  has  shown  himself  very  different  from 
what  we  expected,  though  he  has  never  explained  how  he  came 
to  swear  to  the  Constitution,  and  thus  mounted  the  imperial 
throne. 

"'From  all  this  it  appears  that  we  should  rely  on  fortune  only 
while  it  remains,  —  recollecting  the  words  of  the  thesis,  Fortes 


38  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

fortuna  adjuvat;  and  that,  above  all,  we  should  ever  cultivate 
those  virtues  which  will  never  fail  us,  and  which  are  a  sure 
basis  of  respectability,  and  will  profit  us  here  and  hereafter.' 

"The  subject  is  'Fortes  fortuna  adjuvat';  now  this  is  a 
proposition ;  it  states  a  certain  general  principle,  and  this  is  just 
what  an  ordinary  boy  would  be  sure  to  miss,  and  Robert  [the 
writer  of  the  essay]  does  miss  it.  He  goes  off  at  once  on  the 
word  [term]  'fortuna.'  'Fortuna'  was  not  his  subject;  the 
thesis  was  intended  to  guide  him  for  his  own  good  ;  he  refuses 
to  be  put  into  leading  strings;  he  breaks  loose,  and  runs  off  in 
his  own  fashion  on  the  broad  field  and  in  wild  chase  of  'for- 
tuna,' instead  of  closing  with  a  subject,  which,  as  being  definite, 
would  have  supported  him. 

"  It  would  have  been  very  cruel  to  have  told  a  boy  to  write 
on  'fortuna';  it  would  have  been  like  asking  him  his  opinion  'of 
things  in  general.'  Fortune  is  'good,'  'bad,'  'capricious,'  'un- 
expected,' ten  thousand  things  all  at  once  (you  see  them  all  in 
the  Gradus),  and  one  of  them  as  much  as  the  other.  Ten 
thousand  things  may  be  said  of  it;  give  me  one  of  them,  and  I 
will  write  upon  it ;  I  cannot  write  on  more  than  one ;  Robert 
prefers  to  write  upon  all. 

"'Fortune  favors  the  bold';  here  is  a  very  definite  subject : 
take  hold  of  it,  and  it  will  steady  and  lead  you  on:  you  will 
know  in  what  direction  to  look. 

"Now  I  will  prophesy  one  thing  of  Robert  unless  this  fault 
is  knocked  out  of  him.  .  .  .  When  he  grows  up,  and  has  to  make 
a  speech,  or  write  a  letter  for  the  papers,  he  will  look  out  for 
flowers,  full-blown  flowers,  figures,  smart  expressions,  trite 
quotations,  hackneyed  beginnings  and  endings,  pompous  cir- 
cumlocutions, and  so  on:  but  the  meaning,  the  sense,  the  solid 
sense,  the  foundation,  you  may  hunt  the  slipper  long  enough 
before  you  catch  it."  ! 

1  Idea  of  University,  pp.  355-361. 


AUG  UMENTA  TION.  39 

The  Dangers  that  may  be  avoided  by  Finding  what 
is  the  Subject  of  Debate. 

A  beginner  in  Argumentative  Composition  should,  then, 
keeping  the  distinction  between  a  term  and  a  proposition 
clear  in  his  mind,  seek  first  of  all  to  find  whether  what  he 
or  his  opponent  wishes  to  treat  argumentatively  can  be 
phrased  as  a  proposition.  Doing  this,  (i),  he  will  avoid 
writing  about  a  term  disconnected  statements  which  can 
prove  nothing ;  (2),  he  may  find  that  the  speech  or  article 
of  his  opponent,  some  self-assured  person  who  is  gaining 
credence  from  a  credulous  public,  is  but  a  set  of  statements 
about  the  terms  of  the  subject,  and  is  not  at  all  an  argu- 
ment about  a  proposition.  Sometimes,  too,  there  is 
another  reason  for  this  first  step  in  Analysis,  namely  that 
two  people  get  into  a  controversy  without  any  distinct 
statement  of  the  question  they  are  debating.  Under 
these  circumstances,  each  probably  has  in  his  own  mind  a 
proposition  which  he  assumes  is  that  his  opponent  is  con- 
sidering, but  which  is  not.  Consequently,  the  debate  will 
be  on  parallel  or  divergent  lines  until  the  two  men  have 
stated  their  propositions  and  discovered  either  that  they 
do  not  really  disagree  or  that  what  they  wish  to  debate 
must  be  stated  in  a  proposition  different  from  either  of 
those  with  which  they  started.  Therefore,  (3)  to  insist 
upon  having  a  clearly  stated  proposition  as  the  starting 
point  in  any  argument  is  the  first  step  in  avoiding  this 
danger. 

A  political  campaign  not  long  since  in  one  of  the 
Middle  States  gave  an  illustration  of  this.  Prohibition 
was  nominally  the  subject  of  the  speeches  on  both  sides, 
but,  though  the  speeches  of  those  contending  against  it 


40  ARGUMENTATION. 

could  be  reduced  to  the  proposition,  "  Prohibition  does  not 
prohibit,"  the  speeches  of  those  who  seemed  to  wish  to 
support  it  could  be  reduced  only  to  this  statement:  "High 
License  is  an  immoral  method  of  treating  the  liquor 
problem."  Of  course,  it  was  impossible  for  the  arguments 
of  one  side  to  confute  those  of  the  other,  for  there  was  no 
common  meeting-ground. 

Methods  of  Deciding  whether  the  Proposition 
phrases  the  question  in  dispute. 

The  way  in  which  in  the  above  case  an  unprejudiced 
person  would  decide  which  of  the  original  propositions 
phrased  the  matter  really  in  dispute  would  be  by  finding 
out  (i)  what  the  terms  in  each  proposition  mean„and 
hence  the  proposition  as  a  whole ;  and  (2)  whether  this 
meaning  of  the  whole  proposition  states  the  question 
calling  for  debate.  He  would  decide  as  to  (1)  ky  finding 
definitions  of  the  terms  upon  which  he  and  the  speakers 
could  agree;  and  as  to  (2)  by  analyzing  the  material  in  the 
case  to  see  what  is  exactly  the  real  point  at  issue  and  its 
relation  to  the  other  material.  When,  then,  the  meaning 
of  the  terms  of  a  proposition,  or  of  a  proposition  as  a 
whole,  is  not  self-evident,  definition  is  the  second  important 
step  in  analysis. 

"Consider  the  fortunes  of  an  argument  in  a  debating  society, 
and  the  need  there  so  frequently  is,  not  simply  of  some  clear 
thinker  to  disentangle  the  perplexities  of  thought,  but  of 
capacity  in  the  combatants  to  do  justice  to  the  clearest 
explanations  which  are  set  before  them,  — so  much  so,  that  the 
luminous  arbitration  only  gives  rise,  perhaps,  to  more  hopeless 
altercation.     '  Is  a  constitutional  government  better  for  a  popu- 


ARGUMENTATION.  41 

ktion  than  an  absolute  rule?'  What  a  number  of  points  have 
to  be  clearly  apprehended  before  we  are  in  a  position  to  say 
one  word  on  such  a  question  !  What  is  meant  by  'constitution' ? 
by  'constitutional  government'?  by  'better'?  by  'a  population'? 
and  by  'absolutism'?  The  ideas  represented  by  these  various 
words  ought,  I  do  not  say,  to  be  as  perfectly  defined  and  located 
in  the  minds  of  the  speakers  as  objects  of  sight  in  a  landscape, 
but  to  be  sufficiently,  even  though  incompletely,  apprehended, 
before  they  have  a  right  to  speak.  '  How  is  it  that  democracy 
can  admit  of  slavery,  as  in  ancient  Greece  ? '  '  How  can 
Catholicism  flourish  in  a  republic?'  Now,  a  person  who  knows 
his  ignorance  will  say,  'These  questions  are  beyond  me';  and 
he  tries  to  gain  a  clear  notion  and  a  firm  hold  of  them ;  and,  if 
he  speaks,  it  is  as  investigating,  not  as  deciding.  On  the  other 
hand,  let  him  never  have  tried  to  throw  things  together,  or  to 
discriminate  between  them,  or  to  denote  their  peculiarities,  in 
that  case  he  has  no  hesitation  in  undertaking  any  subject,  and 
perhaps  has  most  to  say  upon  those  questions  which  are  most 
new  to  him.  This  is  why  so  many  men  are  one-sided,  narrow- 
minded,  prejudiced,  crotchety.  This  is  why  able  men  have  to 
change  their  minds  and  their  line  of  action  in  middle  age,  and 
begin  life  again,  because  they  have  followed  their  party,  instead 
of  having  secured  that  faculty  of  true  perception  as  regards 
intellectual  objects  which  has  accrued  to  them,  without  their 
knowing  how,  as  regards  the  objects  of  sight."  l 

Definition  Necessary  for  an  Understanding  of 
Most  Propositions. 

There  are  few  debated  questions  in  which  all  of  the 
terms  carry  their  meanings  unmistakably  on  their  faces.' 
Though,  for  students  of  the  Elizabethan  drama,  the  topic 
"  Can  the  work  of   Francis   Beaumont    be    identified  ? " 

1  Idea  of  University,  pp.  498-499. 


42  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

would  probably  need  no  definition  of  the  terms,  for  a 
general  audience  there  might  be  need  to  explain  just  who 
Beaumont  was,  and  the  nature  of  his  work.  Moreover, 
in  the  following  topics  taken  from  past  forensic  lists  of 
Harvard  College,  is  not  some  definition  indispensable  ? 
"  Is  Bunyan  a  poet  ?  "  "  Is  Goethe's  Egmont  a  tragic 
character  ?  "  "  Does  Rembrandt  lose  more  than  he  gains 
by  his  extravagant  system  of  chiaroscuro?"  "Is  the 
Utilitarian  theory  of  morals  defensible?"  "  Was  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act  of  1850  unjust?"  "Could  the  Swiss 
referendum  be  advantageously  applied  in  the  United 
States?"  "Should  the  United  States  have  a  right  to 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  Behring  Sea?"  How  can  we 
hope  to  discuss  these  topics  clearly  unless  we  first 
decide  what  we  mean  by  "  poet,"  "  tragic  character," 
"chiaroscuro,"  "extravagant  chiaroscuro,"  "Utilitarian 
theory  of  morals,"  "Swiss  referendum,"  "exclusive  juris- 
diction," "Behring  Sea,"  and  decide  on  what  grounds 
we  shall  judge  "defensible,"  "unjust,"  "advantageous"  ? 
Examination  of  these  terms  will  show  a  student  that 
vaguenesses,  the  possibility  of  contradictory  interpreta- 
tions, lurk  in  all  of  these  terms,  traps  for  the  unwary  and 
the  hasty  student. 

The  necessity  for  good  definition  at  the  outset  of  an 
argument,  and  the  way  in  which  it  may  show  that  argu- 
ment between  two  opponents  is  impossible,  are  seen  in 
the  following  extract  from  Tom  Jones.  Tom  has  refused 
to  betray  the  gamekeeper  George. 

"Thwackum  did  all  he  could  to  dissuade  Allworthy  from 
showing  any  compassion  or  kindness  to  the  boy,  saying  '  He 
had  persisted  in  an  untruth,'  and  gave  some  hints  that  a 
second  whipping  might  probably  bring  the  matter  to  light;  but 


ARGUMENTATION.  43 

Mr.  Allworthy  absolutely  refused  to  consent  to  the  experiment: 
he  said  the  boy  had  suffered  enough  already  for  concealing  the 
truth,  even  if  he  was  guilty,  seeing  that  he  could  have  no 
motive  but  a  mistaken  point  of  honour  for  so  doing.  'Honour,' 
cried  Thwackum  with  some  warmth :  '  mere  stubbornness  and 
obstinacy !  Can  honour  teach  any  one  to  tell  a  lie,  or  can  any 
honour  exist  independent  of  religion  ? '  .  .  .  To  this  Square 
answered,  that  it  was  impossible  to  discourse  philosophically 
concerning  words  till  their  meaning  was  first  established;  that 
there  were  scarce  any  two  words  of  a  mcfre  vague  and  uncer- 
tain signification  than  the  two  he  had  mentioned;  for  that 
there  were  almost  as  many  different  opinions  concerning  honour 
as  concerning  religion;  '  but,'  says  he,  '  if  by  honour  you  mean 
the  true  natural  beauty  of  virtue,  I  will  maintain  it  may  exist 
independent  of  any  religion  whatever;  nay,'  added  he  'you 
yourself  will  allow  it  may  exist  independent  of  all  but  one;  so 
will  a  Mahometan,  a  Jew,  and  all  the  maintainers  of  all  the 
different  sects  in  the  world.'  Thwackum  replied,  this  was 
arguing  with  the  usual  malice  of  all  the  enemies  to  the  true 
church.  He  said  he  doubted  not  but  that  all  the  infidels  and 
heretics  in  the  world  would,  if  they  could,  confine  honour  to 
their  own  absurd  errors  and  damnable  deceptions;  'but 
honour,'  says  he,  '  is  not,  therefore,  manifold  because  there  are 
many  absurd  opinions  about  it ;  nor  is  religion  manifold 
because  there  are  various  sects  and  heresies  in  the  world. 
When  I  mention  religion,  I  mean  the  Christian  religion ;  and 
not  only  Christian  religion,  but  the  Protestant  religion ;  and 
not  only  the  Protestant  religion,  but  the  Church  of  England. 
And  when  I  mention  honour,  I  mean  that  mode  of  divine  grace 
which  is  not  only  consistent  with  and  dependent  upon  that 
religion,  but  consistent  with  and  dependent  upon  no  other. 
Now,  to  say  that  the  honour  I  here  mean  —  and  which  was,  I 
thought,  all  the  honour  I  could  be  supposed  to  mean  —  will 
uphold,  much  less  dictate,  an  untruth,  is  to  assert  an  absurdity 
too  shocking  to  be  conceived.'  ...     'I  purposely  avoided,' 


44  ARGUMENTATION. 

says  Square,  *  drawing  a  conclusion  which  I  thought  evident 
from  what  I  have  said;  but  if  you  have  perceived  it,  I  am  sure 
you  have  not  attempted  to  answer  it;  however,  to  drop  the 
article  of  religion,  I  think  it  is  plain,  from  what  you  have  said, 
that  we  have  different  ideas  of  honour,  or  why  do  we  not  agree 
in  the  same  terms  of  its  explanation  ?  I  have  asserted  that 
true  honour  and  true  virtue  are  almost  synonymous  terms,  and 
they  are  both  formed  on  the  unalterable  rule  of  right  and  the 
Eternal  fitness  of  things;  to  which  an  untruth,  being  absolutely 
repugnant  and  contrary,  it  is  certain  that  true  honour  cannot 
support  an  untruth;  in  this,  therefore,  I  think  we  are  agreed; 
but  that  this  honour  can  be  said  to  be  founded  on  religion,  to 
which  it  is  antecedent,  if  by  religion  be  meant  any  positive 

law '  '  I  agree,'  answered  Thwackum,  with  great  warmth, 

•  with  a  man  who  asserts  honour  to  be  antecedent  to  religion. 

Mr.  Allworthy,  did  I  agree ' 

"  He  was  proceeding,  when  Mr.  Allworthy  interrupted,  telling 
them,  very  coldly,  they  had  both  mistaken  his  meaning,  for 
that  he  had  said  nothing  of  true  honour."  1 


The  Difficulty  in  Finding  Satisfactory  Defini- 
tions. 

To  find  satisfactory  definitions  is,  however,  by  no 
means  always  an  easy  task.  In  the  topic  "  Should  the 
United  States  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  Bebring 
Sea?"  if  you  look  up  "  exclusive  jurisdiction"  in  a 
dictionary  and  find  "entire,  supreme  control"  as  its 
equivalent,  how  much  have  you  gained  in  clearness  ? 
What  are  the  limits  of  "entire  control";  by  what  law, 
common  or  international,  are  they  applied  ?  Just  how 
much,  too,  is  meant,  geographically,  by  "  Behring  Sea  "  ? 

1  Tom  Jones,  bk.  Ill,  ch.  3. 


ARG UMENTA  TION.  45 

Does  the  term  in  this  case  cover  the  straits  leading  into 
the  waters  marked  on  maps  with  this  name  ?  Here  are 
many  questions  not  to  be  answered  off-hand,  but  only 
after  careful  examination  of  the  material  on  the  question. 
We  shall  find  that  in  many  cases  the  dictionaries  aid  us 
only  to  substitute  a  vagueness  for  a  generality,  or  the  op- 
posite. Definitions  from  dictionaries  should,  therefore, 
be  used  only  with  great  caution.  For  instance,  justifiable 
is  denned  as  defensible,  warrantable,  but  in  a  question 
like  "Are  the  Irish  justified  in  using  illegal  measures  of 
resistance  to  English  rule?"  to  substitute  " defensible," 
"warrantable,"  does  not  make  us  any  clearer  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  proposition.  We  need  to  know  on  what 
grounds  the  "justifiability,"  "  defensibility,"  "warrant- 
ableness  "  are  to  be  judged.  These  may  be  mora],  social, 
economic,  political,  and,  until  we  decide  on  which  of  these 
we  are  to  judge,  we  cannot  proceed  with  the  discussion. 
Here,  for  instance,  is  a  careful  effort  by  a  student  to 
place  before  us,  with  the  aid  of  a  dictionary,  the  meaning 
of  the  terms  of  a  proposition,  but  it  leaves  us  vague 
after  all. 


Was  Webster's   Attitude  on  the   Slavery  Question,   in 
the  Seventh  of  March  Speech,  Statesmanlike? 

"  In  the  beginning  it  is  obviously  necessary  to  arrive  at 
some  good  definition  of  the  word  statesmanlike.  In  denning 
it,  the  dictionary  tells  us  that  '  to  be  well  versed  in  the  arts  of 
government '  is  statesmanlike.  This  definition  does  not  by 
any  means  satisfy  us.  We  need  a  fuller  one.  The  conclusion 
that  we  reach  is  that  statesmanlike  means  the  man  who  legis- 
lates to  the  best  of  his  ability  for  the  interest  of  his  country,  in 
a  true  and  consistent  manner.     That  Webster,  in  his  seventh 


46  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

of  March  speech,  does  not  come  within  this  definition  we  shall 
endeavor  to  prove.'*' 

As  the  student  says,  when  we  substitute  for  "  states- 
manlike," "to  be  well  versed  in  the  arts  of  government," 
we  are  unsatisfied;  not,  however,  because  the  definition  is 
not  full  enough,  but  because  it  is  not  clear.  We  wish  to 
know  just  what  the  "arts  of  government"  are,  and  what 
is  meant  by  "  well-versed  "  in  them.  The  student's  next 
step  has  several  faults.  He  gives  us  a  longer  definition, 
but  it  is  not  very  clear,  for  will  it  be  easy  to  determine 
what  is  the  best  of  any  man's  ability,  the  interest  of  a 
country  in  a  time  of  conflicting  interpretations  of  the 
word  ?  Does  not  the  rather  vague  word  true  confuse 
us  ?  Moreover,  how  does  the  student  reach  "  the  conclu- 
sion "  that  statesmanlike  means  his  last  definition  ?  The 
necessity  for  this  conclusion  is  not  apparent,  the  defini- 
tion is  not  convincing  of  itself;  and  we  wish  to  know 
more  about  the  links  of  thought  which,  in  the  student's 
mind,  connect  the  term  and  the  definition.  A  definition 
should,  then,  (l)  be  clear,  and  (2)  be  convincing.  Another 
illustration  from  student  work  will  make  the  need  of  the 
second  requisite  clearer. 


))  Are  the  Enjoyment  and  Cultivation  of  the  Fine  Arts 
Essential  to  the  Highest  Type  of  Civilization  ? 

"  The  first  thing  which  we  must  deal  with  is  the  definition  of 
Fine  Arts,  and  its  difference  from  simple  art.  A  work  of  the 
Fine  Arts  must  contain  the  element  of  beauty,  whereas  a  work 
of  art  only  needs  to  show  an  intelligent  mind.  This  leads  us 
to  the  definition  of  beauty.  Now,  beauty  must  possess  these 
two  qualities,  namely:  that  of  proportion,  which  perhaps  is  the 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  47 

most  important,  and  the  abstract  quality  which  pleases  the 
soul  of  man.  A  work  of  the  Fine  Arts  must,  therefore,  of 
necessity  possess  a  certain  moral  element.  'Beauty,'  accord- 
ing to  Professor ,  'is  greater  than  the  good  and  includes 

the  good ;  it  is  the  good  made  perfect.' 

"  Now,  seeing  that  a  work  of  art  contains  a  moral  element,  as 
shown  above,  it  must  have  an  ideal.  And  thus  the  author,  or 
composer,  of  a  work  of  fine  arts  is  constantly  striving  to  attain 
his  ideal,  and  as  he  gets  nearer  and  nearer  to  it,  the  ideal  be- 
comes higher,  and  it  is  this  which  makes  the  motive  for  im- 
provement. 

"  Now,  having  got  the  definition  of  Fine  Art,  we  will  consider 
the  meaning  of  civilization  and  its  development  from  early 
times  to  the  present. 

"According  to  Professor ,  civilization  is  the  sum  of  the 

material  and  moral  acquisitions  of  a  race,  these  acquisitions 
being  embodied  in  the  Fine  Arts." 

This  definition  of  Fine  Arts  is  vague  for  two  reasons  : 
(i)  because,  though  we  watch  its  development  through 
several  stages,  we  are  not  given  any  final  statement  of  it; 
and  (2)  because  it  is  not  convincing  in  its  development. 
The  definition  is  not  convincing  because  we,  as  persons* 
who  have  given  no  special  thought  to  the  topic,  do  not 
see  necessarily  (1)  Why  a  work  of  the  Fine  Arts  must 
contain  an  element  of  beauty  ;  (2)  Why  beauty  must 
possess  both  proportion,  and  the  abstract  quality  which 
pleases  the  soul  of  man ;  •  (3)  Why  a  work  of  the  Fine 
Arts  must,  therefore,  possess  a  moral  element ;  nor,  at 
first  sight,  (4)  Just  why  there  must  be  an  ideal  in  any 
work  of  the  Fine  Arts  ;  (5)  Why,  consequently,  even  if 
an  artist  is  always  trying  to  attain  his  ideal,  that  is  neces- 
sarily the  same  as  the  ideal  contained  in  any  work  of  the 
Fine   Arts ;    (6)  Why,  the  nearer  the   artist   gets  to  his 


4S  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

ideal,  the  higher  it  becomes,  i.e.,  the  farther  it  goes  away 
from  him.  In  brief,  then,  in  all  these  matters  the  writer 
must  stop  for  argument,  or  at  least  for  exposition,  or  else 
we  shall  be  unwilling  to  accept  his  statements  and  to  fol- 
low him.  A  definition  must  then  be  clear,  because,  if  it 
is  not,  we  cannot  follow  our  opponent  in  his  work ;  it 
must  be  convincing,  because,  if  it  is  not,  we  shall  not  be 
willing  to  follow  him. 

It  is  an  unconvincing  definition  which  Lord  Erskine 
held  up  to  ridicule  in  part  of  his  examination  of  the  testi- 
mony against  Lord  George  Gordon  of  William  Hay: 

"  The  witness  said  that  in  the  city  he  saw  '  the  very  same  man 
carrying  the  very  same  flag  he  had  seen  in  the  fields.'  He 
said  he  knew  it  was  the  same  man  because  '  he  looked  like  a 
brewer's  servant.'  '  "Like  a  Brewer's  Servant" !  What,  were 
they  not  all  in  their  Sunday  clothes?'  'Oh  !  yes,  they  were 
all  in  their  Sunday  clothes.'  'Was  the  man  with  the  flag  then 
alone  in  the  dress  of  his  trade  ? '  '  No.'  'Then  how  do  you 
know  he  was  a  brewer's  servant  ? '  Poor  Mr.  Hay  !  —  Nothing 
but  sweat  and  confusion  again  !  At  last,  after  a  hesitation, 
which  everybody  thought  would  have  ended  in  his  running  out 
of  court,  he  said,  'He  knew  him  to  be  a  brewer's  servant,  because 
there  was  something  peculiar  in  the  cut  of  his  coat,  the  cut  of  his 
breeches,  a?id  the  cut  of  his  stockings  P  .   .   . 

"...  I  am  sure,  gentlemen,  you  will  not  forget,  whenever 
you  see  a  man  about  whose  apparel  there  is  anything  peculiar, 
to  set  him  down  for  a  brewer's  servant."  1 

A  definition  may  be  unconvincing,  not  merely  because 
it  is  not  clear,  but  also  because,  though  clear  in  itself, 
it  begs  the  question.  When  the  writer  on  Fine  Arts 
defines  civilization  as  the  "  sum  of  the  material  and  moral 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  p.  115. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  49 

acquisitions  of  a  race,  these  qualities  being  embodied  in 
the  Fine  Arts,"  does  he  do  more  than  to  say:  "  Civilization 
and  development  of  the  Fine  Arts  go  hand  in  hand;  the 
civilization  of  a  race  is  higher  or  lower  as  the  Fine  Arts 
are  more  or  less  developed  in  it,  i.e.,  as  there  is  a  greater 
or  lesser  embodiment  of  material  and  moral  acquisitions  "  ? 
In  other  words,  he  defines  in  a  circle:  civilization  means 
the  development  of  the  Fine  Arts;  the  development  of 
the  Fine  Arts  means  civilization.  The  definition  begs 
the  whole  question,  since  we  were  asked  whether  the 
enjoyment  of  that  upon  which  the  development  of  civiliza- 
tion depends  is  essential  to  the  highest  type  of  civilization 
A  good  definition  (3)  should  not,  thai,  define  in  a  circle^ 
sJionld  not  beg  the  question,  for  by  such  defining  we  do  not 
make  any  headway  in  our  work. 

When  Thwackum,  in  the  extract  from  Tom  Jones, 
quoted  p.  43,  asked  "  Can  there  be  any  honour  without 
religion?"  and  later  added  :  "When  I  mention  religion, 
I  mean  the  Christian  religion,  and  not  only  the  Christian 
religion,  but  the  Protestant  religion  ;  and  not  only  the 
Protestant  religion,  but  -the  Church  of  England.  And 
when  I  mention  honour  I  mean  that  mode  of  divine  grace 
which  is  not  only  consistent  with  but  dependent  upon 
this  religion,  and  is  consistent  with  and  dependent  upon 
no  other,  "  it  is  clear  that  he  begs  the  question  in  his 
definition. 

Always,  too  (4),  a  definition  should  be  as  brief  as  is  con- 
sistent with  fulfilli?ig  the  requisites  of  clearness  and  convin- 
cingness. 


50  ARGUMENTA  TION. 


An  Attempt  to    define    Statesmanlike,  Fine   Arts, 
and  Civilization. 

If,  now,  we  try  to  get  satisfactory  definitions  of  states- 
manlike, fine  arts,  and  civilization,  we  shall  not  find  our 
task  easy.  If  we  look  in  the  Century  Dictionary,  we  find 
that  statesmanlike  means  "  having  the  manner  or  the  wis- 
dom of  a  statesman,  worthy  of  or  befitting  a  statesman." 
This  forces  us  to  define  statesman,  for  we  are  no  clearer 
in  mind  than  before.  A  statesman,  according  to  the  dic- 
tionary, is  a  "man  who  is  versed  in  the  art  of  govern- 
ment,"—  the  student's  vague  definition  —  "and  exhibits 
conspicuous  ability  and  sagacity  in  the  direction  and 
management  of  public  affairs."  That  last  clause  at  first 
sight  is  helpful,  for  it  seems  possible  to  debate  this  :  Did 
Daniel  Webster  show  conspicuous  ability  and  sagacity  in 
the  way  in  which  he  directed  public  affairs  in  his  seventh 
of  March  speech  ?  Instantly,  however,  we  face  this  ques- 
tion, What  are  to  be  the  tests  of  ability  and  sagacity  in 
the  management  of  public  affairs,  what  are  the  tests  in 
this  case  ?  If,  in  our  search  for  a  good  definition  of  states- 
manlike, we  come  upon  this  definition  by  James  Russell 
Lowell,  we  shall  see  our  way  more  clearly  :  "  Undoubt- 
edly the  highest  function  of  statesmanship  is  to  accom- 
modate by  degrees  the  conduct  of  communities  to  ethical 
laws,  and  to  subordinate  the  conflicting  self-interests  of  the 
day  to  higher  and  more  permanent  concerns."  *  At  once, 
now,  the  question  becomes  for  us  :  Did  Daniel  Webster  in 
his  seventh  of  March  speech  do  anything  to  accommodate 
the  conduct  of  the  community  to  ethical  laws,  and  subor- 

1  Political  Essays.    J.  R.  Lowell.    Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.,  1890.    p.  195. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  5 1 

dinate  the  conflicting  self-interests  of  the  day  to  higher 
and  more  permanent  concerns  ?  We  shall  certainly  find 
this  to  be  a  working  interpretation  of  statesmanlike. 

If,  for  Fine  Arts,  we  consult  the  Century  Dictionary, 
we  shall  find  that  an  art  is  "a  system  of  rules  and  tradi- 
tional methods  for  facilitating  the  performance  of  certain 
actions,"  Rhetoric,  Argumentation ;  that  Fine  Arts 
"  seek  expression  through  beautiful  modes,"  and  are  spe- 
cifically, architecture,  sculpture,  painting,  and  engraving. 
The  term  beautiful  modes  is  here  troublesome,  and  we 
shall  probably  turn  to  some  specialist  on  the  Fine  Arts 
for  further  aid.  In  Professor  Sidney  Colvin's  article  on 
the  Fine  Arts,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica}  he 
defines  as  follows  :  "  In  other  modern  languages  besides 
English  they  (the  Fine  Arts)  are  called  by  the  equiva- 
lent name  of  the  beautiful  arts  {belle  arti,  beaux  arts, 
tchone  Kiinste).  The  fine  or  beautiful  arts,  then,  are 
those  among  the  arts  of  man  which  minister  not  to  his 
material  necessities  or  conveniences,  but  to  his  love  of 
beauty  (using  the  word  beauty  in  its  widest  sense)  ;  or, 
if  any  art  fulfills  both  these  purposes  at  once,  still  as  ful- 
filling the  latter  only  is  it  called  a  fine  art.  There  is  no 
difference  of  opinion  concerning  the  nature  of  fine  art 
and  the  fine  arts  as  contra-distinguished  from  art  and  the 
arts  mechanical.  It  is  acknowledged  that  one  set  of  arts 
exists  to  satisfy  practical  needs,  and  the  other  set  exists 
to  give  delight  and  satisfy  the  sense  of  beauty,  while  as 
to  an  intermediate  set  of  arts  which  exist  for  both  pur- 
poses, it  is  possible  to  distinguish  in  each  case  the  part 
which  is  beautiful  or  pleasurable  from  the  part  which  is 
mechanical  or  merely  useful."      Here  we  have  not  gone 

1  Vol.  IX,  p.  174. 


52  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

much  beyond  the  student's  definition,  but  we  do  know 
now  that  art  specialists  support  his  definition  and  that 
they  agree  in  giving  to  all  of  the  fine  arts  the  element  of 
beauty.  Still,  however,  we  need  to  know  in  what  sense 
the  word  beauty  is  used  ;  indeed,  we  shall  find  that  the 
question  practically  turns  on  the  definition  we  give  it, 
for  we  shall  ultimately,  evidently,  debate  this  :  Is  cultiva- 
tion of  the  qualities  in  men  fostered  by  an  appeal  to  their 
sense  of  beauty  essential  to  the  highest  civilization  ? 

If  now  we  turn  to  Ruskin's  Modern  Painters  1  we  can 
get  some  light  on  beauty.  "Any  material  object  which 
can  give  us  pleasure  in  the  simple  contemplation  of  its 
outward  qualities  without  any  direct  and  definite  exertion 
of  the  intellect,  I  call  in  some  way  or  in  some  degree 
beautiful.  ...  I  do  not  mean  by  excluding  direct  exertion 
of  the  intellect  from  ideas  of  beauty^  to  assert  that  beauty 
has  no  effect  upon,  nor  connection  with  the  intellect.  In 
all  high  ideas  of  beauty,  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
much  of  the  pleasure  depends  on  delicate  and  untraceable 
perceptions  of  fitness,  propriety,  and  relations  which  are 
purely  intellectual,  and  through  which  we  arrive  at  our 
noblest  ideas  of  what  is  commonly  and  rightly  called  in- 
tellectual beauty.  .  .  .  But  there  is  no  immediate  exertion 
of  the  intellect  ;  that  is  to  say,  if  a  person  receiving  even 
the  noblest  ideas  of  simple  beauty  be  asked  why  he  likes 
the  object  exciting  them,  he  will  not  be  able  to  give  any 
distinct  reason  nor  to  have  in  his  mind  any  formed 
thought  to  which  he  can  appeal  as  a  source  of  pleasure. 
He  will  say  that  the  thing  gratifies,  fills,  hallows,  exalts 
his  mind,  but  he  will  not  be  able  to  say  why  or  how.  If 
he  can,  and  if  he  can  show  that  he  perceives  in  the  object 

i  Vol.  I,  ch.  3. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  53 

any  expression  of  distinct  thought,  he  has  received  more 
than  the  idea  of  beauty — it  is  an  idea  of  relation." 

The  question  becomes,  then,  if  we  accept  this  definition 
of  beauty:    Is   the   cultivation  of  the  arts  —  specifically 
architecture,  sculpture,  painting,  and  engraving  —  which 
can  give  men  pleasure   in   the   simple  contemplation  of 
their  outward  qualities,  without   any  direct  and  definite 
exertion  of  the  intellect,  essential  to  the  highest  type  of 
civilization  ?     That  last  word,  however,  is  open  to  misin- 
terpretation ;  the  student  begged  the  question  in  defining 
it.     Worcester's   definition  of  the  word,   "act  of  civiliz- 
ing"  gives   no   aid  in    understanding  it;  but   if  in  our 
searching  we  happen  on  the  definition  in  Hazlitt's  trans- 
lation of  Guizot's  History  of  Civilization,   "Two  leading 
facts   constitute   civilization  :    1.  the  development  of  so- 
ciety ;    2.  the  development  of  the  individual,"  1  shall  we 
not  feel  at  once  that  we  have  found  a  definition  of  the 
word  that  conforms  to  all  the  tests  laid  down  for  a  good 
definition  —  clearness,  convincingness,  brevity  ? 

The  question  new  becomes  :  Is  the  cultivation  of  those 
arts  which  give  men  pleasure  in  the  simple  contemplation 
of  their  outward  qualities,  without  any  direct  and  definite 
exertion  of  the  intellect,  essential  to  the  highest  develop- 
ment (1)  of  the  individual,  (2)  of  society?  With  these 
definitions  we  can  safely  investigate  the  topic  for  ourselves, 
for  we  are  at  least  clear  in  our  minds  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  question. 

1  History  of  Civilization.      Guizot.    Translated  by  Wm.  Hazlitt.     Vol.  I. 
Table  of  Contents.     First  Lecture.     H.  G.  Bohn,  1886. 


54  ARGUMENTATION. 

Different  Methods  of  Definition. 

From  the  examination  of  the  common  faults  in  defini- 
tion, and  from  the  attempt  to  find  satisfactory  definitions 
for  statesmanlike,  fine  arts,  and  civilization,  it  should  be 
clear  that  "  defining  a  word  "  has  a  very  variable  meaning. 
The  simple  definition  states  only  the  class  to  which  the 
object  belongs,  the  genus,  and  in  what  it  differs  from  the 
other  members  of  the  class,  its  qualities  as  a  species.  For 
instance,  an  eozoon  used  to  be  defined  as  (genus)  a  fossi- 
lized organic  body,  (species)  belonging  to  the  Foraminifera; 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  at  Liverpool,  defined  the  Repub- 
licans as  (genus)  "  those  men,  (species)  who  undertook  to 
stand  up  for  the  rights  of  all  men,  black  as  well  as  white." 
Often  the  dictionaries  provide  us  with  these  simple  dera- 
tions, or  with  synonymous  phrases  that  are  clear  and 
convincing  ;  or  we  find  a  satisfactory  phrase  elsewhere, 
as  when  we  hit  on  Lowell's  statesmanlike ;  Guizot's  civi- 
lization; Dean  Swift's  style  is  the  "proper  words  in  the 
proper  places";  or  Cardinal  Newman's  "  Style  is  a  think- 
ing out  into  language."  More  often,  however,  a  mere 
statement  of  the  genus  and  the  differentia  is  not  enough, 
and  the  dictionaries  do  not  help  us ;  we  must,  then,  deter- 
mine the  meaning,  the  limits  of  our  terms,  by  other 
methods,  —  by  analysis  of  the  word,  by  careful  exposition, 
by  antithesis,  illustration,  analogy,  indeed  by  whatever 
method  will  make  clear  and  convincing  a  term  that  origi- 
nally is  neither. 

Definition  of  the  words  poet,  poetry,  by  examination 
of  the  history,  the  etymology  of  the  word,  this  extract 
from  Philip  Sidney's  Defence  of  Poesie  shows: 

"  Among  the  Romans  a  poet  was  called  vates,  which  is  as  mu 
as  a  diviner,  foreseer,  or  prophet,  as  by  his  conjoined  woi 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  55 

vaticinium  and  vatieinari,  is  manifest ;  so  heavenly  a  title  did 
that  excellent  people  bestow  upon  the  heart-ravishing  knowledge. 
And  so  far  were*  they  carried  into  admiration  thereof,  that 
they  thought  in  the  chanceable  hitting  upon  any  such  verses 
great  foretokens  of  their  following  fortunes  were  placed  ;  where- 
upon grew  the  word  of  Sortes  Virgilianae,  when  by  sudden 
opening  Virgil's  book  they  lighted  upon  some  verse  of  his 
making.  .  .  .  And  may  I  not  presume  a  little  farther  to  show 
the  reasonableness  of  this  word  vates,  and  say  that  the  holy 
David's  Psalms  are  a  divine  poem  ?  If  I  do,  I  shall  not  do  it 
without  the  testimony  of  great  learned  men,  both  ancient  and 
modern.  But  even  the  name  of  Psalms  will  speak  for  me, 
which,  being  interpreted,  is  nothing  but  Songs ;  then,  that  it 
is  fully  written  in  metre,  as  all  learned  Hebricians  agree,  al- 
though the  rules  be  not  yet  fully  found ;  lastly  and  principally, 
his  handling  his  prophecy,  which  is  merely  poetical.  .  .  .  But 
now  let  us  see  how  the  Greeks  named  it  and  how  they  deemed 
of  it.  The  Greeks  call  him  71-01777771/,  which  name  hath,  as  the 
most  excellent,  gone  through  other  languages.  It  cometh  of 
the  word  ttoi&v,  which  is,  '  to  make  ' ;  wherein,  I  know  not 
whether  by  luck  or  wisdom  we  Englishmen  have  met  with  the 
Greeks  in  calling  him  a  maker."  1 

The  following  from  Mr.  H.  B.  Wheatley's  Literary 
Blunders  illustrates  the  method  of  definition  by  antithesis 
placing  one  term  over  against  another  in  order  to  see  in 
just  what  they  differ  : 

"  The  words  '  blunder '  and  -  mistake  '  are  often  treated  as 
synonyms  ;  thus  we  usually  call  our  blunders  mistakes,  and 
our  friends  style  our  mistakes  blunders.  In  truth,  the  class  of 
blunders  is  a  subdivision  of  the  genus  mistakes.  Many  mis- 
takes are  very  serious  in  their  consequences,  but  there  is 
almost   always  some   sense  of  fun  connected  with  a  blunder, 

1  Defence  of  Poesie,  P.  Sidney,  pp.  5,  6.     Ginn  &  Co.,  1890. 


56  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

which  is  a  mistake  usually  caused  by  some  mental  confusion. 
Lexicographers  state  that  it  is  an  error  due  to  stupidity  and 
carelessness,  but  blunders  are  often  caused  by  a  too  great 
sharpness  and  quickness.  Sometimes  a  blunder  is  no  mistake 
at  all,  as  when  a  man  blunders  on  the  right  explanation ;  thus 
he  arrives  at  the  right  goal,  but  by  an  unorthodox  road.  .  .  . 
Some  years  ago  there  was  an  article  in  the  Saturday  Review  on 
'the  knowledge  necessary  to  make  a  blunder,'  and  this  title 
gives  the  clue  to  what  a  blunder  really  is.  It  is  caused  by  a 
confusion  of  two  or  more  things,  and  unless  something  is 
known  of  these  things  a  blunder  cannot  be  made.  A  perfectly 
ignorant  man  has  not  sufficient  knowledge  to  blunder."  l 

The  following  from  R.  L.  Stevenson's  letter  to  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Hyde,  in  answer  to  his  letter  attacking  Father  Damien, 
exemplifies  in  the  first  part   definition  by  iterationaand 
I   in  the  second,  definition  by  exemplification : 

"  Common  honour ;  not  the  honour  of  having  done  anything 
right,  but  the  honour  of  not  having  done  aught  conspicuously 
foul ;  the  honour  of  the  inert ;  that  was  what  remained  to  you. 
.  .  .  But  will  a  gentleman  of  your  reverend  profession  allow 
me  an  example  from  the  fields  of  gallantry  ?  When  two  gentle- 
men compete  for  the  favour  of  a  lady,  and  the  one  succeeds 
and  the  other  is  rejected,  and  (as  will  sometimes  happen)  matter 
damaging  to  the  successful  rival's  credit  reaches  the  ear  of  the 
defeated,  it  is  held  by  plain  men  of  no  pretensions  that  his 
mouth  is,  in  the  circumstance,  almost  necessarily  closed.  Your 
church  and  Damien's  were  in  Hawaii  upon  a  rivalry  to  do  well : 
to  help,  to  edify,  to  set  divine  examples.  You  having  (in  one 
huge  instance)  failed,  and  Damien  succeeded,  I  marvel  it  should 
not  have  occurred  to  you  that  you  were  doomed  to  silence ; 
that  when  you  had  been  outstripped  in  that  high  rivalry,  and 

1  Literary  Blunders,  pp.  I,  2.  H.  B.  Wheatley.  London:  Elliot,  Stock 
&  Co.,  1893. 


ARGUMENTATION.  57 

sat  inglorious  in  the  midst  of  your  well-being,  in  your  pleasant 
room  —  and  Damien,  crowned  with  glories  and  honors,  toiled 
and  rotted  in  that  pigstye  of  his  under  the  cliffs  of  Kalawao  — 
you,  the  elect  who  would  not,  were  the  last  man  on  earth  to 
collect  and  propagate  gossip  on  the  volunteer  who  would  and 
did."1 

In  his  Liverpool  speech  Henry  Ward  Beecher  used 
analogy  as  a  means  of  definition : 

"A  savage  is  a  man  of  one  story,  and  that  one  story  a 
cellar.  When  a  man  begins  to  be  civilized  he  raises  another 
story.  When  you  christianize  and  civilize  the  man,  you  put 
story  upon  story,  for  you  develop  faculty  after  faculty;  and 
you  have  to  supply  every  story  with  your  productions."2 

Definition  by  exemplification  Professor  Huxley  used  in     i 
explaining  testimonial  and  circumstantial  evidence: 

"  By  testimonial  evidence  I  mean  human  testimony ;  and  by 
circumstantial  evidence  I  mean  evidence  which  is  not  human 
testimony.  .  .  .  Suppose  that  a  man  tells  you  that  he  saw  a 
person  strike  another  and  kill  him  ;  that  is  testimonial  evidence 
of  the  fact  of  murder.  But  it  is  possible  to  have  circumstan- 
tial evidence  of  the  fact  of  murder ;  that  is  to  say,  you  may 
find  a  man  dying  with  a  wound  upon  his  head  having  exactly 
the  form  and  character  of  the  wound  which  is  made  by  an  axe, 
and,  with  due  care  in  taking  surrounding  circumstances  into 
account,  you  may  conclude  with  the  utmost  certainty  that  the 
man  has  been  murdered ;  that  his  death  is  the  consequence  of 
a  blow  inflicted  by  another  man  with  that  implement." 3 

1  Father  Damien,  pp.  u  and  12.  Chatto  &  Windus,  1880.  Reprinted 
from  the  Scots'  Observer. 

2  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  p.  166. 

3  Idem,  pp.  70,  71. 


58  ARG  UMENTA  TIQN. 

Definition  by  careful  exposition  of  the  terms  in  which 
the  troublesome  word  has  been  defined  is  illustrated  by 
the  quotation  from  Ruskin  as  to  Beauty,  p.  52.  The  defi- 
nition he  gives  of  the  word  is  in  itself  not  entirely  clear 
and  convincing,  and  therefore  he  explains  carefully  what 
he  means  by  something  that  can  give  pleasure  without 
any  direct  or  definite  exertion  of  the  intellect.  See  also 
Professor  Genung's  definition  of  Description,  Practical 
Rhetoric ,  pp.  326,  327. 

Definition  by  description  is  illustrated  by  Professor 
Huxley's  account,  in  the  first  of  his  Three  Lectures  on 
Evohction,  of  the  second  hypothesis,1  and  by  the  following 
from  an  article  on  the  Steam  Engine  by  G.  C.  V. 
Holmes : 

"Take  a  hollow  cylinder,  the  bottom  closed  while  the  top 
remains  open,  and  pour  in  water  to  the  height  of  a  few  inches. 
Next  cover  the  water  with  a  flat  plate  or  piston,  which  fits  the 
interior  of  the  cylinder  perfectly  ;  then  apply  heat  to  the  water, 
and  we  shall  witness  the  following  phenomena.  After  the  lapse 
of  some  minutes  the  water  will  begin  to  boil,  and  the  steam 
accumulating  at  the  upper  surface  will  make  room  for  itself 
by  raising  the  piston  slightly.  As  the  boiling  continues,  more 
and  more  steam  will  be  formed,  and  raise  the  piston  higher  and 
higher,  till  all  the  water  is  boiled  away,  and  nothing  but  steam 
is  left  in  the  cylinder.  Now  this  machine,  consisting  of  cylinder, 
piston,  water,  and  fire,  is  the  steam-engine  in  its  most  elemen- 
tary form.  For  a  steam-engine  may  be  defined  as  an  apparatus 
for  doing  work  by  means  of  heat  applied  to  water  ;  an  of -'since 
raising  such  a  weight  as  the  piston  is  a  form  of  doing  "work, 
this  apparatus,  clumsy  and  inconvenient  though  it  may  be,  an- 
swers the  definition  precisely." 2 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  66,  67. 

2  Specimens  of  Exposition,  p.  42.     H.  Lamont.     H.  Holt  &  Co.,  1894. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  59 

The  important  idea  that  all  these  quotations  illustrate 
is  that  in  denning  we  shall  be  forced  very  often  to  turn 
aside  from  the  dictionaries  and  by  search  in  essays,  books 
by  specialists,  in  our  own  experience,  by  careful  exami- 
nation of  the  words,  and  by  thought  upon  them,  to  reach 
through  analogy,  exemplification,  analysis  of  the  word, 
detailed  description,  iteration,  antithesis,  their  real  mean- 
ing. 

Advantages  of  Preliminary  Definition  of  Terms. 

The  advantages  of  this  preliminary  examination  of  the 
terms  of  the  proposition  to  be  debated  are  of  several 
kinds.  By  it  (i)  topics,  particularly  scientific  subjects 
but  also  literary  questions,  that  are  vague  only  because 
they  are  technical,  are  cleared  by  the  substitution  of 
terms,  longer  perhaps  but  more  generally  understood. 
For  instance,  to  the  average  magazine  reader  the  subject, 
"  Is  the  cortex  of  the  cerebrum  in  man  divided  into 
definitely  localized  centres  ? "  contains  at  least  two  terms 
that  will  probably  not  be  clear:  "  cortex  of  the  cerebrum  " 
and  "  localized  centres."  You  may  rephrase  the  question 
in  this  way:  "  Is  the  layer  of  gray  matter  investing  most 
of  the  surface  of  the  brain  and  dropping  down  into  the 
fissures  between  the  convolutions  of  the  brain,  divided 
into  areas  whose  relation  to  the  nerves  not  in  the  brain 
is  as  follows:  (A)  the  removal  of  one  of  these  areas  in~ 
volves  (i)  the  abolition  of  the  voluntary  control  of  the 
efferent  nerves  of  a  certain  part,  or  (2)  if  the  sensory 
nerves  are  concerned,  the  preclusion  of  sensations  from 
following  their  stimulation ;  on  the  other  hand,  (B)  stimu- 
lation of  these  same  areas  will  give  rise  to  a  sensation, 
as   if   in  the  part,   or  to  definite   muscular  action  in  the 


60  A  KG  UMENTA  TION. 

part?"1  This,  though  long,  should  certainly  be  clearer  for 
the  general  reader.  But  to  get  this  we  must  subject  the 
proposition  to  the  examination  which  has  just  been  advo- 
cated. This  literary  topic,  too,  "  Is  transverse  alliteration 
in  parisonic  antithetical  or  parallel  clauses  the  indispens- 
able criterion  of  the  presence  of  Euphuism  ? "  a  ques- 
tion based  on  an  affirmation  of  Dr.  Friedrich  Landmann, 
who  has  made  a  study  of  the  subject,  would  be  meaning- 
less to  many.  As  a  critic  has  said,  it  needs  "a  com- 
mentary to  make  it  intelligible."  When  we  expand  this 
by  aid  of  explanations  from  Dr.  Landmann  as  follows, 
it  becomes  clearer.  Euphuism  is  the  name  given  to  the 
style  of  John  Lyly  from  his  novel,  Euphues,  His  Anatomie 
of  Wit.  The  following  is  an  instance  of  transverse  alliter- 
ation :  "  Although  hitherto,  Euphues,  I  have  brined  thee 
in  my  //eart  for  a  /mstie  /nende,  I  will  ^unne  thee  //^re- 
after  as  a  /rothless  /be."  Are,  then,  this  transverse 
alliteration  and  an  antithesis  not  only  of  well-balanced 
sentences  but  also  of  words,  even  of  syllables,  which, 
when  we  have  a  principal  and  a  subordinate  clause,  bal- 
ances two,  three,  or  all  of  the  words  of  the  former  against 
an  equal  number  of  the  latter,  indispensable  criteria  of 
the  presence  of  Euphuism  ? 

Nor  will  the  objection  that,  since  we  must  explain  these 
technical  terms,  it  would  be  better  to  give  the  topic  origi- 
nally in  the  phrasing  that  we  reach  when  we  examine  it, 
always  hold  good.  These  technical  names,  as  the  last  two 
illustrations  show,  often  phrase  what  can  be  expressed 
otherwise  only  by  awkward  circumlocution,  and  the*  propo- 
sition which  we  reach  in  our  examination  of  the  terms 
would  be  in  these  cases  too  cumbersome  for  a  heading. 

1  Arranged  from  the  Century  Dictionary. 


A  KG  UMENTA  TION.  61 

Moreover,  it  is  important  that  the  reader  should  realize 
that  what  he  understands  clearly  enough  when  stated  at 
length  is  but  the  same  thing  or  process  which  the  scien- 
tist or  specialist  denotes  by  a  single  word  or  term.  That 
is  his  first  step  into  the  new  knowledge  that  he  is  acquir- 
ing. Unless,  therefore,  the  technical  phrasing  of  the  topic 
is  likely  to  repel  a  possible  reader  or  hearer,  because  it 
conveys  no  meaning  to  his  mind  and  does  not  pique  his 
curiosity,  it  may  well  be  retained,  but  should  be  at  once, 
in  the  introductory  work,  cleared  of  all  vagueness. 

This  process  also  rids  a  topic  of  any  confusion  liable  to 
arise  from  it  because  it  is  (2)  ambiguous  or  (3)  has  ques- 
tion-begging terms  in  it.  The  following  topic,  for  in- 
stance, contains  an  ambiguous  term  :  Was  the  treatment 
of  the  American  Loyalists  by  the  Whigs  justifiable  ? 
When  the  subject  appeared  recently  in  a  list  of  forensic 
topics  at  Harvard  College,  briefs  from  two  very  different 
points  of  view  were  drawn  on  it.  Some  students  took 
Whigs  to  mean  the  Whig  party  in  the  Colonies,  that  is, 
those  who  were  in  armed  resistance  to  Great  Britain, 
while  others  interpreted  Whigs  to  mean  the  Whig  minis- 
try of  Lord  Shelburne.  As  far  as  the  mere  wording  of 
the  question  is  concerned,  each  interpretation  is  justifi- 
able. The  trouble  lies,  of  course,  in  the  ambiguousness 
of  Whigs.  If  we  rephrase  the  question  thus,  Was  the 
treatment  of  the  American  Loyalists  by  the  English 
Whigs  justifiable  ?  the  danger  disappears. 

Here  is  an  example  of  a  proposition  containing  a  ques- 
tion-begging epithet,  "Is  John  Lyly's  fulsome  flattery  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  in  his  Euphues  and  his  England,  com- 
mendable ? ' '  This  question  evidently  assumes  that  all  must 
admit  that  the  flattery  of  Elizabeth  was  "fulsome,"  and 


62  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

hence  it  becomes  important  for  us  to  understand  just  what 
"fulsome  flattery"  means.  "Fulsome,"  according  to  the 
Centtcry  Dictionary ;  "  is  something  offensive  from  excess, 
gross,  nauseous,  disgusting."  But  anything  that  deserves 
these  adjectives  can  hardly  be  commendable,  and  hence 
the  term  "fulsome"  begs  the  question. 

The  advantage,  however,  of  this  preliminary  examina- 
tion is  not  merely  to  rid  the  proposition  of  technical, 
ambiguous,  or  question-begging  terms  ;  it  also  goes  a  long 
way  (4)  to  rid  the  entire  discussion  of  vagueness.  If,  in 
your  writing  or  speaking,  you  get  the  audience  to  accept 
your  preliminary  definitions,  you  are  well  on  the  road  to 
convincing  them.  All  the  introductory  portion  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley's  first  of  his  three  lectures  on  Evolution, 
given  in  New  York  in  1876,  illustrates  this.  He  so  states 
the  problem  of  the  creation  of  the  world  that  every  fair- 
minded  man  must  admit  that,  whatever  his  prejudices,  it 
has  thus  presented  itself  to  him  at  some  time.  He  then 
explains  the  three  possible  hypotheses  so  clearly,  so  simply, 
and  so  fairly  that  the  same  hearer  must  admit  their  fair- 
ness and  clearness.  Then,  because  nearly  all  the  proof 
to  be  used  to  refute  the  old  hypotheses  and  to  support  the 
new  will  be  circumstantial  evidence,  Professor  Huxley 
carefully  explains  the  difference  between  it  and  testi- 
monial evidence  and  why  the  popular  distrust  of  circum- 
stantial evidence  is  unworthy  support.  When,  then,  he 
begins  to  argue,  every  reader  must  understand  just  what 
the  question  means  and  be  ready  to  admit  all  that  he  has 
said  thus  far.  Yet,  if  these  definitions  and  distinctions 
be  granted,  especially  the  value  put  upon  circumstantial 
evidence,  the  reader  will  find  that  Professor  Huxley's  con- 
clusions are  well-nigh  irresistible.1 

1  See  pp.  60-72,  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern). 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  63 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  an  audience,  when  you  are  speak- 
ing, refuses  to  accept  your  definitions,  you  are  spared  the 
labor  of  a  speech  which  could  never  have  convinced  any 
one  before  you,  and  you  know  whence  the  difference  of 
opinion  springs.      If  readers  refuse  to  accept  your  defini- 
tions and  to  read  beyond  them  in  your  work,  you  are  not 
saved  the  labor  of  composition,  but  they  are  saved  the 
labor  of  reading  something  to  which  they  could  not  agree, 
and  you  both  understand  where  and  why  you  differ.      If, 
for  a  third  case,  the  audience  of  hearers  or  readers  objects 
to  your  definitions,  but  is  willing  to  hear  you  finish,  they 
decide  either  that,  granted  your  definitions,  which  they 
cannot  accept,  you  are  right,  or  that  neither  your  defini- 
tions   nor   your  argument    developed    from    these,   seem 
conclusive.     In  any  case,  therefore,  this  preliminary  de- 
fining  of   terms    that    may  be  vague,  is  a  great  aid   in 
ascertaining  just  where  you  and  your  opponents  differ, 
and  is  indispensable  in  clearing  the  ground  for  action. 
Indeed,  "  definition  is  the  life  of  argument." 

How  Much  shall  we  define? 

If,  then,  we  are,  in  discussion,  to  define  whatever  in 
the  termsof  the  proposition  may  be  susceptible  of  a  dif- 
ferent interpretation  by  us  and  by  our  opponent  or  audi- 
ence, how  are  we  to  know  how  much  to  define  ?  When 
the  controversy  is  between  two  persons  only,  they  either 
meet  for  discussion  or  they  carry  on  their  argument  by 
letter  or  through  the  press.  Our  aim  in  any  case  is,  of 
course,  to  make  our  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the 
question  coincide  with  that  of  our  opponent  or  audience. 
When  two  opponents  meet,  if  at  the  start  this  coincidence 


64  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

of  interpretation  does  not  exist,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to 
find  the  particular  term  or  terms  which  are  interpreted 
differently,  and  these  are  all  that  must  be  defined  satis- 
factorily before  the  argument  itself  can  begin.  Even  if 
the  controversy  is  carried  on  by  letter  or  through  the 
press,  this  means  that  one  of  the  two  persons  aroused 
the  other  by  something  which  he  wrote  or  said.  This 
was  probably  formulated  as  a  proposition,  or  may  readily 
be  reduced  to  one,  and  the  meaning  given  to  its  terms 
can  be  readily  ascertained  by  study  of  the  argument 
developed  from  them.  Before  replying,  the  second  per- 
son should  find  out  what  the  proposition  of  his  opponent 
is  and  what  is  the  interpretation  given  by  him  to  its 
terms.  If  the  second  person  differs  as  to  their  meaning, 
he  should  show  why  clearly  before  he  begins  his  argu- 
ment. Here,  again,  one  opponent  really  tells  the  other 
what  it  is  in  the  terms  upon  which  they  differ  and  upon 
which  they  must  reach  an  agreement  before  they  can 
argue  about  anything  more  than  the  meaning  of  the 
terms. 

When  two  men  discuss  by  letter  or  through  the  press, 
because  something  the  first  has  said  or  written  has  aroused 
the  other,  the  position  of  the  first,  who  launched  his  article 
or  speech  into  the  world  with  no  special  #ogponent  in 
mind,  is  that  of  the  man  who  writes  for  or  addresses  an 
audience.  His  work  in  determining  to  what  extent  he  shall 
define  his  terms  is  much  more  difficult  than  that  of  thei 
man  writing  for  or  speaking  to  one  other  person.  Often,  \ 
as  in  the  case  of  an  article  in  a  magazine,  he  writes  for 
an  audience  of  indeterminate  size,  of  many  and  widely 
differing  points  of  view,  some  of  which  he  can  hardly 
foresee.     Even  if  his  work  be  addressed  only  to  an  audi- 


ARGUMENTA  TJON.  65 

ence  of  a  hundred  in  some  hall,  there  will  be,  probably, 
several   grades  of  intellect  in  it  and  various  degrees  of 
knowledge  of  his  subject.     How  is  he  in  either  of  these 
cases  to  determine  what  terms  will  need  explanation,  what 
is  liable  in   the  proposition   to   be  misinterpreted?     He 
must  strike  an  average.     Putting  aside  for  a  moment,  as 
far  as  he  can,  the  special  knowledge  of  his  subject  that 
makes  even  difficult  matters  seem  to  him  rudimentary  and 
self-evident,  he  must,  for  an  audience  of  magazine  readers, 
try  to  place  himself  in  the  position' of  a  person  of  average 
intelligence  and  education  who  has  no  special  knowledge 
of  the  subject,  but  is  willing  to  learn  about  it.      He  will 
then  explain  those  terms  which,  it  seems  to  him,  must  be 
vague  to  such  a  person.     If  he  is  writing  a  popular  article 
on  some  subject  in  which  he  is  a  specialist,  the  probable 
needs  of  a  reader  of  the  Century,  the  Harper,  or  the  Scrib- 
ner,  who  runs  over  the  pages  of  the  current  number  for 
something  interesting,  knowing  but  little  of  the  subject  of 
any  of  the  articles,  may  be  a  convenient  standard.     Prac- 
tice in  such  work  will  soon  give  him  accuracy  of  judgment 
as  to  the  amount  of  definition  needed  in  popularizing  a 
subject  in  history,  science,  or  literature.      If  he  is  directly 
to  address  an  audience,  he  must  before  he  is  to  enter 
the  hall,  or  rapidly  as  he  looks  over  his  audience  before 
beginning,    judge    its   intellectual    status,  and,  when    he 
speaks,   increase  or  diminish  his    definition    as  the  con- 
ditions  in  the    audience  seem  to  warrant.     Here  again 
practice,  this  time  in  addressing  audiences,  makes  a  task 
originally  very  difficult  increasingly  easier. 

It  must  be  clear  from  this  attempt  to  get  some  rough 
tests  for  limiting  our  defining  that  it  will  vary  as  the 
audiences  vary.      A  writer  may  range  from  an  article  for 


66  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

children  on  his  specialty  in  the  Youth 's  Companion  or  St. 
Nicholas,  through  an  essay  on  it,  still  simple,  but  by  no 
means  clear  to  children,  in  the  Harper,  the  Scribner,  the 
Century,  to  a  discussion  in  regard  to  it  for  his  fellow- 
workers,  by  no  means  clear  not  merely  for  children,  but 
even  for  the  average  reader,  in  the  Historical  Review,  the 
Psychological  Review,  or  Anglia.  Evidently  the  prelimi- 
nary definition  required  in  treating  the  same  subject  for 
these  three  different  audiences  will  vary  decidedly.  For 
the  third  set  of  readers  he  will  need  to  define  only  those 
terms  to  which  he  gives  an  unusual  meaning ;  in  regard 
to  all  the  essentials  of  the  question,  the  audience  will  be 
as  well  informed  as  the  writer.  The  second  audience  will 
need  considerable  definition,  the  first  a  great  deal.  In 
the  same  way  a  speaker  who  in  turn  addresses  an  audi- 
ence at  some  charity  organization  in  the  slums  of  a  city, 
a  large  gathering  of  people  in  a  popular  lecture  course,  or 
a  meeting  of  some  historical  or  scientific  association,  will 
much  vary  the  amount  of  preliminary  defining  that  he 
does.  Common  sense  and  practice  are  the  best  guides 
in  determining  the  amount  of  defining  to  be  done  for  any 
special  audience. 

The  Third   Step  in  Analysis   involved  in  Defining. 

This  defining  of  our  terms  for  our  own  convenience  or 
that  we  may  reach  an  undertanding  about  them  with  our 
opponent,  involves  a  third  step  in  our  analytical  work. 
We  agree  to  or  refuse  to  accept  definitions  of  the  terms 
in  our  topic  as  they  seem  to  us  when  taken  together  to 
make  clear,  or  to  fail  to  make  clear,  just  the  matter  which 
we  wish  to  discuss.      In  other  words,  when  we  have  set 


ARG UMENTA  TJ ON.  67 

tied  on  definitions  of  all  the  possible  vague  terms  in  our 
topic  or  have  accepted  definitions  of  them  given  by  our 
opponent,  we  have  decided  that  the  topic  as  rephrased  in 
the  definitions  states  clearly  the  general  question  which 
we  wish  to  treat.  Now  to  know  what  this  general  ques- 
tion is,  what  is  the  disputable  topic,  we  must  have  ex- 
amined into  the  origin  of  the  discussion  to  see  how  it 
became  debatable.  Some  study  of  the  origin  of  the  ques- 
tion, then,  is  involved  in  the  definitions  of  the  terms,  and 
is  a  third,  if  subordinate,  step  in  analysis. 

For  instance,  when  we  are  asked  to  accept  this  restate- 
ment of  the  question  in  regard  to  the  seventh  of  March 
speech  of  Daniel  Webster,  "  Did  Daniel  Webster,  in  his 
seventh  of  March  speech,  accommodate  the  conduct  of  the 
community  to  ethical  laws  and  subordinate  the  conflict- 
ing self-interests  of  the  day  to  higher  and  permanent  con- 
cerns ? "  we  cannot  pass  any  judgment  on  the  sufficiency 
of  the  definition  of  statesmanlike  unless  we  know  the  cir- 
cumstances which  gave  rise  to  the  question.  When  we  re- 
member, or  find  by  investigation,  that  at  a  time  of  confused 
and  conflicting  interests  Daniel  Webster  made  a  speech 
which  some  men  then  and  since  have  denounced  as  truck- 
ling to  political  faction  in  order  that  he  might  gain  the  presi- 
dency, we  shall  see  that  the  new  phrasing  of  the  topic 
states  what  we  wish  to  debate. 

For  a  second  illustration,  look  at  the  topic,  "  Has  the 
United  States  a  right  to  exclusive  jurisdiction  over 
Behring  Sea  ? "  If  we  are  asked  to  accept  "  supreme 
control"  as  the  meaning  of  exclusive  jurisdiction,  we  wish 
to  know  in  what  way,  in  what  acts,  that  "  supreme  con- 
trol "  would  manifest  itself,  and  also  by  what  that 
"  supreme   control"    would   be   given.     Until   we   know 


68  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

these  matters,  we  can  hardly  be  satisfied  with  "  supreme 
control."  In  other  words,  we  must  look  into  the  origin 
of  the  question.  We  shall  find  that  in  1886,  1887,  and 
1888  United  States  cruisers  seized  vessels  said  to  be 
British.  These  were  engaged,  in  the  waters  of  Behring 
Sea,  outside  the  ordinary  limit  of  territorial  jurisdiction 
(three  miles  from  shore),  in  hunting  and  taking  fur  seals 
which  had  their  breeding  grounds  on  two  of  the  islands 
of  the  Aleutian  group.  The  United  States  acted  in  this 
way  on  the  ground  that  it  must  protect  the  interests  of 
the  sealing  company  to  which  the  right  to  take  seals  on 
these  islands  had  been  granted.  If  seals  could  be  captured 
by  other  persons  as  the  animals  were  on  their  way  to  and 
from  the  islands,  there  was  danger,  at  most  of  extermina- 
tion, at  least  of  serious  injury  to  the  interests  of  the  Amer- 
ican sealing  company.  Great  Britain  protested  against 
the  action  of  the  United  States,  and  the  latter  declared 
that  it  had  a  right  to  control  the  waters  of  Behring  Sea  for* 
the  protection  of  the  seals  ;  said,  in  brief,  that  it  had  the 
right  to  exclude  all  the  vessels  of  all  other  nations  from 
the  seal-fishing  in  Behring  Sea.  "  Supreme  control," 
then,  is  satisfactory,  and  we  see,  too,  on  what  grounds 
the  right  must  be  determined,  for  here  we  have  one  great 
nation  arrayed  against  another,  the  first  making  a  claim 
to  rights  outside  the  limits  that  International  Law  —  the 
law  of  nations  —  sets  as  the  ordinary  territorial  limit. 
Evidently,  then,  we  must  determine  whether  International 
Law  can  be  interpreted  as  granting  the  United  States 
right  to  supreme  control  over  Behring  Sea.  In  testing 
the  definition,  however,  we  have  come  to  know  the  origh 
of  the  question.  A 


A  R  G  UMEN  TA  TION.  69 

A  Danger   that   this  Study  of  the   Origin    of   the 
Question  avoids. 

This  testing  of  the  definitions  by  examining  the  origin 
of  the  question  sometimes  shows  the  inadequacy  of  the 
proposition  as  formulated.  For  instance,  a  few  years  ago 
some  Harvard  students  were  eager  to  write  on  the  quaran- 
tine regulations  in  New  York  to  prevent  the  spreading 
of  cholera  in  this  country.  When  asked  to  formulate  a 
topic,  they  usually  gave  it  as  follows:  "Should  there  be 
strict  quarantine  regulations  in  New  York  ? "  Certainly 
this  was  a  question,  but  when  they  were  asked  to  state 
just  what  they  meant  by  quarantine  regulations  and  strict 
quarantine  regulations  it  appeared  that  in  their  minds  the 
first  term  stood  for  the  treatment  of  passengers  of  the 
^steamer  Normannia.  That  definition  meant  that  it  was 
necessary  to  inquire  as  to  the  way  the  question  arose  in 
-the  mind  of  the  student,  for  why  should  quarantine  regu- 
lations mean  this  particular  idea?  Such  inquiry  showed 
that  the  detention  by  the  United  States  officials  in  quar- 
antine for  several  days  of  the  steamer  Normannia,  when 
she  came  in  with  some  cases  of  cholera  on  board,  had 
caused  great  distress  to  the  passengers,  and  the  justice, 
the  necessity,  for  the  details  of  the  treatment  were  really 
what  interested  the  students.  Therefore  examination  of 
the  origin  of  the  question  showed  that  the  students  had 
not  phrased  their  topic  properly.  None  questioned  that 
there  should  be  a  strict  quarantine  in  New  York  harbor, 
but  many  questioned  whether  in  the  case  of  the  Norman- 
nia it  was  not  unnecessarily  severe.  Therefore  the  propo- 
sition to  debate  had  to  be  changed  to :  "  Was  the  treat- 
ment of  the  passengers  of  the  Normannia  unnecessarily 
severe  ? " 


70  ARGUMENTATION. 

*%, 

What  the  First  Three  Steps  in  Analysis  give  us. 

To  sum  up,  then  :  first  we  get  a  proposition  to  discuss; 
then  we  examine  its  terms  to  see  what  they  mean  singly, 
and  what  they  give  as  a  meaning  to  the  proposition  as  a 
whole;  and  in  accepting  the  definitions  as  not  merely 
clear  but  as  satisfactory  for  our  purposes,  we  test  them, 
by  examining  the  origin  of  the  question,  to  see  whether 
the  definitions  give  to  the  proposition  as  a  whole  a  mean- 
ing that  phrases  the  general  question  we  wish  to  discuss. 


The  Fourth  Step   in  Analysis:  to  find  the  Special 
Issue  in  the  Case. 

In  every  case,  amid  the  tangle  of  ideas  connected  with 
it,  there  is  one  central  idea,  or  group  of  ideas,  about  which 
the  others  centre.  To  prove  this  central  idea,  or  group  of 
ideas,  to  be  true  or  false,  is  to  win  the  case  for  the  affirm- 
ative or  the  negative.  For  instance,  in  Lord  Erskine's 
defense  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  the  general  question  was, 
"  Is  Lord  George  Gordon  guilty  of  treason  ? "  but  Lord 
Erskine,  in  his  skillful  introduction,  soon  shows  that  the 
question  turns  on  this:  "Has  anything  in  the  conduct  of 
Lord  George  Gordon  been  an  open,  unambiguous,  and 
premeditated  levying  of  war  against  the  king  in  his 
realm  ? "  That  is  the  special  issue  in  the  case.  As  we 
answer  it  affirmatively  or  negatively,  the  case  is  settled 
for  one  side  or  the  other ;  on  this  question  the  debate 
turns. 

In  the  same  way  the  question  "  Was  Aaron  Burr  guilty 
of  treason  ?  "  reduces  for  a  lawyer  treating  it  on  constitu 
tional  grounds  to  this  :  "  Was  there  any  overt  act  of  treaso 


: 


ARGUMENTATION.  71 

by  Burr  witnessed  by  two  persons  ?"  That  is,  the  special 
issue  here  has  two  ideas :  Was  he  guilty  of  a  treasonable 
act,  and  were  there  two  witnesses  to  it  ?  If  the  lawyer 
were  perfectly  sure  that  he  could  show  there  were  not  two 
witnesses,  he  might  grant  the  first  and  confine  his  atten- 
tion to  the  second.  Indeed,  since  two  witnesses  to  an 
overt  act  could  not  be  found,  the  case  against  Burr  fell 
through. 

When,  too,  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt  was  accused  of  high 
treason,  he  cut  down  to  the  essential  ideas,  the  special 
issue,  in  his  case,  as  follows  : 

".The  accusation  comprehendeth  the  indictment,  and  all  these 
worshipful  men's  tales  annexed  thereunto.  The  length  whereof, 
the  cunning  whereof,  made  by  learned  men,  weaved  in  and  out, 
to  persuade  you  and  trouble  me  here  and  there,  to  seek  to 
answer  that  is  in  the  one  afore,  and  in  the  other  behind,  may 
both  deceive  you  and  amaze  me,  if  God  put  not  in  your  heads 
honest  wisdom  to  weigh  these  things  as  much  as  it  ought  to  be. 
So,  to  avoid  the  danger  of  your  forgetting,  and  my  trouble  in 
the  declaration,  it  is  necessary  to  gather  the  whole  process  into 
these  chief  points,  and  unto  them  to  answer  directly,  whereby 
ye  shall  perceive  what  be  the  principals,  and  what  be  the  effects 
which  these  men  craftily  and  wittingly  have  weaved  together, 
that  a  simple  man  might  hardly  try  the  one  from  the  other. 
Surely,  but  that  I  understand  my  own  matter,  I  should  be  too 
much  to  seek  and  accumbered  in  it.  But,  masters,  this  is 
more  of  law  than  of  equity,  of  living  than  of  uprightness,  with 
such  intricate  appearances  to  blind  men's  conscience  ;  specially 
in  case  of  man's  life,  where  always  the  naked  truth  is  of  good- 
liest persuasion.  But  to  purpose.  Of  the  points  that  I  am 
accused  of,  to  my  perceiving,  these  be  the  two  marks  where- 
unto  mine  accusers  direct  all  their  shot  of  eloquence.  A  deed, 
and  a  saying.     After  this  sort,  in  effect,  is  the  deed  alleged 


72  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

with  so  long  words  :  '  Wyatt  in  so  great  trust  with  the  King's 
Majesty  that  he  hath  made  him  his  ambassador,  and  for  whom 
his  Majesty  had  done  so  much,  being  ambassador,  hath  had 
intelligence  with  the  King's  rebel  and  traitor,  Pole.'  Touching 
the  saying,  amounteth  to  this  much  :  '  That  same  Wyatt,  being 
also  ambassador,  maliciously,  falsely  and  traitorously  said,  That 
he  feared  that  the  King  should  be  cast  out  of  a  cart's  tail;  and 
that  by  God's  blood,  if  he  were  so,  he  were  well  served,  and  he 
would  he  were  so.'  The  sole  apparel  of  the  rest  of  all  this 
proof  pertaineth  to  the  proof  of  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
two  points.  But  if  these  two  points  appear  unto  you  to  be 
more  than  false,  maliciously  invented,  craftily  disguised  and 
worse  set  forth,  I  doubt  not  but  the  rest  of  their  proofs  will  be 
but  reproofs  in  every  honest  man's  judgment."  -1 

In  his  Liverpool  speech,  Beecher  cut  clown  the  discus- 
sion to  one  special  issue,  as  follows  : 

"  The  power  to  create  riches  is  just  as  much  a  part  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  virtues  as  the  power  to  create  good  order  and 
social  safety.  The  things  required  for  prosperous  labor,  pros- 
perous manufactures,  and  prosperous  commerce  are  three. 
First,  liberty  ;  second,  liberty  ;  third,  liberty.  Though  these 
are  not  merely  the  same  liberty,  as  I  shall  show  you.  First, 
there  must  be  liberty  to  follow  those  laws  of  business  which 
experience  has  developed,  without  imposts,  or  restrictions  or  I 
governmental  intrusions.  Business  simply  wants  to  be  let 
alone.  Then,  secondly,  there  must  be  liberty  to  distribute 
and  exchange  products  of  industry  in  any  market  without  bur-j 
densome  tariffs,  without  imposts,  and  without  vexatious  regula- 
tions. There  must  be  these  two  liberties  —  liberty  to  create 
wealth,  as  the  makers  of  it  think  best,  according  to  the  light 
and  experience  which  business  has  given  them  ;  and,  then, 
liberty  to  distribute  what  they  have  created  without  unneces- 
sary vexatious  burdens.     The  comprehensive  law  of  the  ideal 

1  The  Aldine  Poets.     Wyatt.     Bell  &  Co.     pp.  lxx,  lxxi. 


ARGUMENTA  T/OAT.  73 

industrial  condition  of  the  world  is  free  manufacture  and  free 
trade.  I  have  said  there  were  three  elements  of  liberty.  The 
third  is  the  necessity  of  an  intelligent  and  free  race  of  custom- 
ers. There  must  be  freedom  among  producers ;  there  must 
be  freedom  among  the  distributors ;  there  must  be  freedom 
among  the  customers.  It  may  not  have  occurred  to  you  that 
it  makes  any  difference  what  one's  customers  are,  but  it  does 
in  all  regular  and  prolonged  business.  The  condition  of  the 
customer  determines  how  much  he  will  buy,  determines  of  what 
sort  he  will  buy.  Poor  and  ignorant  people  buy  little  and  that 
of  the  poorest  kind.  The  richest  and  the  intelligent,  having 
the  more  means  to  buy,  buy  the  most  and  always  buy  the  best. 
Here,  then,  are  the  three  liberties:  liberty  of  the  producer, 
liberty  of  the  distributor  and  liberty  of  the  consumer.  The 
first  two  need  no  discussion ;  they  have  been  long,  thoroughly, 
and  brilliantly  illustrated  by  the  political  economists  of  Great 
Britain  and  by  her  eminent  statesmen  ;  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  enough  attention  has  not  been  directed  to  the  third  ;  and, 
with  your  patience,  I  will  dwell  upon  that  for  a  moment  before 
proceeding  to  other  topics."  ' 

The  way  in  which  an  involved  case  may  sometimes  be 
made  to  turn  on  the  settlement  in  the  affirmative  or  the 
negative  of  one  question,  the  proof  or  disproof  of  one  idea, 
an  experience  of  Abraham  Lincoln's  illustrates.  Treating 
a  murder  case,  he  showed  by  clear  exposition  that  the 
case  rested  on  the  testimony  of  a  witness  that  he  saw  the 
fatal  blow  struck.  When  the  witness  was  asked  how  he 
happened  to  see  it,  he  said  that  he  saw  it  because  he  was 
near  by  and  there  was  bright  moonlight.  Lincoln, 
impressing  upon  the  jury  the  importance  of  the  words  of 
this  witness  as  the  only  weighty  evidence  against  his  cli- 

1  Liverpool  Speech.       H.    \V.   Beecher.      Specimens  of  Argumentation 
Modern),  pp.  160,  161. 


74  A R G  UMENTA  TION. 

ent,  and  the  idea  of  the  moonlight  as  the  convincing  part 
of  that  testimony,  turned  to  an  almanac  and  showed  that 
on  the  night  named  there  was  no  moonlight.1 

The  Method  of  Finding  the  Special  Issue. 

We  find  this  special  issue,  whether  one  idea  or  a  group 
of  ideas,  by  further  analysis.  Knowing  the  origin  of  the 
question,  we  examine  all  the  material  we  can  gather  on 
the  proposition  and  decide  (i)  What  in  regard  to  the  topic, 
besides  the  definition  of  the  terms  and  the  origin  of  the 
question,  may  be  admitted  by  both  sides  ?  (2)  What  ideas 
are  wholly  extraneous,  though  usually  connected  witJi  the 
subject  and  likely  to  connect  tliemselves  zvith  it  ?  In  the 
Behring  Sea  question,  the  statements  made  on  the 
origin  of  the  question  and  the  necessity  for  deciding 
the  discussion  on  grounds  of  International  Law  would 
be  matters  admitted  by  both  sides.  Erskine,  in  be- 
ginning his  defense  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  admits 
the  truth  of  one  opening  statement  of  his  opponent,  as 
follows  : 

"  One  observation  he  has,  however,  made  on  the  subject,  in 
the  truth  of  which  I  heartily  concur,  viz.,  that  the  crime  of 
which  the  noble  person  at  your  bar  stands  accused  is  the  very 
highest  and  most  atrocious  that  a  member  of  civil  life  can  pos- 
sibly commit,  because  it  is  not,  like  all  other  crimes,  merely  an 
injury  to  society  from  the  breach  of  some  of  its  reciprocal  rela- 
tions, but  it  is  an  attempt  utterly  to  dissolve  and  destroy 
society  altogether."  2 

Wyatt,  in  the  extract  given  on  p.  71,  broadly  excludes 

1  Life  of  Lincoln.     Herndon  &  Weik.    Vol.  II,  p.  358. 

2  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  p.  92. 


ARGUMENTATION.  75 

extraneous  ideas,  and  Erskine,  in  his  defense  of  Gordon, 
more  specifically  excludes  them  as  follows: 

11 1  trust  I  need  not  remind  you  (the  jury)  that  the  purposes 
of  that  multitude,  as  originally  assembled  on  that  day,  and  the 
purposes  and  acts  of  him  who  assembled  them,  are  the  sole 
object  of  investigation.  All  the  dismal  consequences  which 
followed,  and  which  naturally  link  themselves  with  this  subject 
in  the  firmest  minds,  must  be  altogether  cut  off  and  abstracted 
from  your  attention  further  than  the  evidence  warrants  their 
admission.  If  the  evidence  had  been  coextensive  with  these 
consequences  ;  if  it  had  been  proved  that  the  same  multitude, 
under  the  direction  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  had  afterward 
attacked  the  bank,  broke  open  the  prisons,  and  set  London  in 
a  conflagration,  I  should  not  now  be  addressing  you.  .  .  .  But 
when  it  has  appeared,  not  only  by  the  evidence  in  the  cause, 
but  by  the  evidence  of  the  thing  itself  —  by  the  issues  of  life, 
which  may  be  called  the  evidence  of  Heaven  —  that  these 
dreadful  events  were  either  entirely  unconnected  with  the 
assembling  of  that  multitude  to  attend  the  petition  of  the 
Protestants,  or,  at  the  very  worst,  the  unforeseen,  undesigned, 
unabetted,  and  deeply  regretted  consequences  of  it,  I  confess 
the  seriousness  and  solemnity  of  this  trial  sink  and  dwindle 
away.  Only  abstract  from  your  minds  all  that  misfortune,  acci- 
dent, and  the  wickedness  of  others  have  brought  upon  the 
scene,  and  the  cause  requires  no  advocate.  When  I  say  that 
it  requires  no  advocate,  I  mean  that  it  requires  no  argument 
to  screen  it  from  the  guilt  of  treason.  For  though  I  am  per- 
fectly convinced  of  the  purity  of  my  noble  friend's  intentions, 
yet  I  am  not  bound  to  defend  his  prudence,  nor  to  set  it  up  as 
a  pattern  for  imitation :  since  you  are  not  trying  him  for  impru- 
dence, for  indiscreet  zeal,  or  for  want  of  foresight  and  precau- 
tion, but  for  a  deliberate  and  malicious  predetermination  to 
overpower  the  laws  and  government  of  his  country  by  hostile, 
rebellious  force."  x 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  98,  99. 


76  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

Professor  Dicey,  in  his  introductory  chapter  to  his 
study  of  the  report  of  the  Commission  of  1890  on  the 
Times  against  Parnellism  and  the  Land  League,  thus 
insists  on  the  exclusion  of  all  extraneous  matter  from 
the  examination  to  be  given  the  report  and  states  what 
must  be  excluded. 

"  Our  minds  must  be  kept  fixed  upon  the  matter  and  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Report,  and  upon  that  alone.  Scores  of  questions 
which  have  occupied,  distracted  or  excited  Members  of  Parlia- 
ment have  little  real  connection  with  the  Report  and  are  of  no 
permanent  importance  whatever.  Whether  the  Commission 
was  appointed  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Unionists  or  in  defer- 
ence to  the  wishes  of  the  Parnellites ;  whether  the  original 
creation  of  the  Commission  was  an  act  of  prudence  or  of  indis- 
cretion; whether  the  motives  of  the  Times  in  publishing  'Par- 
nellism and  Crime '  were  patriotic  or  malignant ;  whether 
Pigott's  evidence  had  better  have  been  introduced  at  an 
earlier  period  of  the  investigation  before  the  commissioners 
than  that  at  which  it  was  brought  forward,  are  inquiries  which 
to  any  man  whose  eye  is  fixed  on  the  permanent  interests  of 
the  nation  must  appear  trifles  worthy  neither  of  consideration 
nor  answer.  The  questions  which  do  concern  the  welfare  of 
the  state  are  of  a  very  different  calibre.  What  is  the  true 
character  of  the  Parnellite  movement  ?  does  the  Land  League 
merely  tread  in  the  steps  of  the  Anti-Corn  Law  League  and 
other  perfectly  lawful  associations  ?  are  its  authors  constitu- 
tionalists or  conspirators,  agitators  or  revolutionists  ?  These 
are  the  questions  which  are  of  vital  importance  to  every  man 
who  has  a  care  for  the  prosperity  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
To  these  inquiries  the  Commission's  Report  does  in  some 
measure  give  an  answer ;  to  that  answer  and  its  results  it  will 
be  well,  as  far  as  possible,  to  confine  our  attention."  1 

1  The  Verdict.     A.  V.  Dicey,  Q.  C.     p.  8.     Cassell  &  Co.,  1890. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  77 

It  is,  then,  by  these  two  methods  that  Lord  Erskine, 
and  all  careful  workers  in  analysis,  bring  out  clearly  what 
is  the  special  idea  or  group  of  ideas  in  the  case. 

The  Fifth  Step  in  Analysis  :  to  find  the  Relation 
to  the  Central  Idea  of  Ideas  Essential  in  the 
Case. 

When  we  have  separated  from  the  material  bearing  on 
the  case  what  may  be  admitted,  we  have  left  the  central 
idea  surrounded  by  a  mass  of  uncorrected  and  somewhat 
confused  material  that  apparently  has  some  bearing,  not 
as  yet  accurately  determined,  upon  the  main  issue.  Doubt- 
less in  our  analysis  thus  far  we  have  seen  that  some  ideas 
in  the  mass  of  material  must  be  established  as  true,  if  the 
main  issue  is  to  be  settled  affirmatively,  i.e.,  we  see  the 
relation  of  these  ideas  to  the  main  idea.  We  cannot, 
however,  know  what  we  believe  about  the  question  until 
we  understand  clearly  in  what  way  all  of  this  matter  is 
related,  part  to  part,  and  centres  about  the  special  issue. 
Or,  to  put  it  differently,  we  must  decide  what  ideas  are 
to  be  proved  true,  and  in  what  order,  if  the  special  issue 
is  to  be  settled  as  we  wish.  Here  we  are  studying,  by 
analysis  still,  the  inherent  structure  of  the  parts  of  which 
we  spoke  earlier.  For  instance,  by  the  treaty  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  it  was  agreed  that 
but  five  points  should  be  submitted  to  the  arbitrators 
who,  in  1893,  met  in  Paris  to  decide  what  rights  to  seal 
in  Behring  Sea  the  United  States  has.  They  were 
these  : 

"  1.  What  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  sea  now  known  as  the 
Behring  Sea,  and  what  exclusive  rights   in   the  seal  fisheries 


78  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

therein,  did  Russia  assert  and  exercise  prior  and  up  to  the  time 
of  the  cession  of  Alaska  to  the  United  States  ? 

"  2.  How  far  were  these  claims  of  jurisdiction  as  to  the  seal 
fisheries  recognized  and  conceded  by  Great  Britain  ? 

"3.  Was  the  body  of  water  now  known  as  the  Behring  Sea 
included  in  the  phrase  'Pacific  Ocean,'  as  used  in  the  treaty 
of  1825  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  and  what  rights,  if 
any,  in  the  Behring  Sea  were  held  and  exclusively  exercised  by 
Russia  after  said  treaty  ? 

"  4.  Did  not  all  the  rights  of  Russia  as  to  jurisdiction  and  as 
to  the  seal  fisheries  in  Behring  Sea  east  of  the  water  boundary, 
in  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Russia  of  the  30th 
of  March,  1867,  pass  unimpaired  to  the  United  States  under 
that  treaty  ? 

"  5.  Has  the  United  States  any  right,  and,  if  so,  what  right  of 
protection  or  property  in  the  fur  seals  frequenting  the  islands 
of  the  United  States  in  Behring  Sea  when  such  seals  are  found 
outside  the  ordinary  three-mile  limit  ?  " l 

These  are  the  five  matters  which  acute  minds  selected 
as  essential  from  the  mass  of  material  attaching  to  this 
involved  question.  To  fix  on  them  as  essential  was  the 
first  step  in  the  discussion.  The  method  must,  whether 
consciously  or  unconsciously  used,  have  been  that  just 
explained  at  length.  First,  the  central  idea,  the  most 
important,  was  selected — 5.  Then  came  the  question: 
How  can  this  be  answered  ?  The  reply  was,  By  con- 
sidering the  claim  of  the  United  States  that  she  acquired 
certain  rights  from  Russia.  Analysis  of  the  material, 
uncorrelated  as  yet,  showed  that  much  of  it  could  be  put 
into  a  discussion  considering  whether  this  claim  is  correct. 
At  once,  however,  the  question  arose :  Did  not  the  treaty 

1  Behring  Sea  Tribunal  of  Arbitration.  Opinions  of  Mr.  Justice  Harlan, 
PP-  58>  59-     Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  1893. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  79 

of  1825  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia  say  something 
that  would  affect  these  so-called  rights  of  Russia  ?  That, 
then,  must  be  considered  first,  and  we  have  a  third  dis- 
cussion. But  that  question  raised  the  general  subject  of 
what  recognition  Great  Britain  had  given  to  Russian 
claims  in  Behring  Sea.  That  again,  before  it  could  be 
discussed,  necessitated  a  careful  exposition  of  just  the 
claims  made  by  Russia.  We  see,  then,  how  the  other 
ideas  in  a  case,  as  we  consider  them,  gradually  arrange 
themselves  with  reference  to  the  main  idea  and  with 
reference  to  one  another. 

This  analysis,  then,  gives  us  the  primary  inherent  struc- 
ture in  our  material,  the  last  important  work  of  analysis. 
Evidently,  in  arranging  this  material  with  thought  for  its 
primary  structure,  it  may  be  possible  so  to  present  it  as 
to  get  more  force,  clearness,  climax,  in  one  way  rather 
than  another.  Here  we  shall  need  to  remember  the  laws  • 
of  Rhetoric,  which  teach  us  about  such  matters,  to  study 
secondary  structure  for  effective  presentation  of  the  pri- 
mary structure.  Plainly,  when  the  material  is  carefully 
coordinated  in  our  minds  for  primary  and  secondary 
structure,  we  can  mass  about  the  ideas  the  evidence  in 
support  of  them,  —  in  other  words,  we  can  make  our 
brief. 

Summary.  —  It  must  be  clear,  then,  that  Analysis  shows 
us  (1)  What  the  question  in  dispute  is,  and  (2)  What 
is  the  work  to  be  done.  This  it  does  by  (a)  giving  us 
a  proposition,  (b)  defining  the  terms ,  (c)  showing  us  the 
origin  of  the  question,  (d)  settling  what  facts  are  admitted 
by  both  sides,  (e)  cutting  out  extraneous  ideas,  (/)  finding 
the  special  issue,  and  (g)  determining  the  relations  that  the 
essential  materials  bear  to  one  a  no  the?'.     It  should  be  clear, 


80  ARG  UMENTA  TJON. 

now,  why  drawing  briefs   will   be  the   next   step   in   our 
work. 

The  Importance  of  Analysis. 

A  student  in  Argumentation  cannot  train  himself  too 
carefully  in  analysis,  for  the  power  to  analyze  keenly  and 
correctly  is  fundamental  in  his  work.  A  ready  and  cor- 
rect use  of  this  power  is  a  marked  characteristic  of  all 
men  noted  for  argumentative  skill.  For  instance,  Mr. 
Lincoln's  mind,  it  is  said,  "  ran  back  behind  facts,  prin- 
ciples, and  all  things,  to  their  origin  and  first  cause  — 
to  that  point  where  forces  act  at  once  as  effect  and 
cause.  He  would  stop  in  the  street  and  analyze  a 
machine.  He  would  whittle  a  thing  to  a  point,  and 
then  count  the  numberless  inclined  planes  and  their 
pitch  making  the  point.  .  .  .  Clocks,  omnibuses,  lan- 
guage, paddle-wheels,  and  idioms  never  escaped  his  ob- 
servation and  analysis.  Before  he  could  form  an  idea 
of  anything,  before  he  would  express  his  opinion  on  a 
subject,  he  must  know  its  origin  and  history  in  substance 
and  quality,  in  magnitude  and  gravity.  He  must  know 
it  inside  and  outside,  upside  and  downside.  .  .  .  He  was 
remorseless  in  his  analysis  of  facts  and  principles.  When 
all  these  exhaustive  processes  had  been  gone  through 
with  he  could  form  an  idea  and  express  it,  but  no  sooner. 
He  had  no  faith  and  no  respect  for  'say  so's,'  come  though 
they  might  from  tradition  or  authority.  Thus  everything 
had  to  run  through  the  crucible  and  be  tested  by  the  fires 
of  his  analytic  mind  ;  and  when  at  last  he  did  speak,  his 
utterances  rang  out  with  the  clear  and  keen  ring  of  gold 
upon  the  counters  of  the  understanding.  He  reasoned 
logically  through  analogy  and  comparison.    All  opponents 


ARGUMENTATION.  81 

dreaded  his  originality  of  idea,  his  condensation,  definition 
and  force  of  expression ;  and  woe  be  to  the  man  who 
hugged  to  his  bosom  a  secret  error  if  Lincoln  got  on  the 
chase  of  it.  .  .  .  Time  could  hide -the  error  in  no  nook  or 
corner  of  space  in  which  he  would  not  detect  and  expose 
it."1 

Of  Chief  Justice  Marshall's  mind,  one  writer  says:  "  It 
is  not  very  richly  stored  with  knowledge,  but  it  is  so  crea- 
tive, so  well  organized  by  nature,  or  disciplined  by  early 
education  and  constant  habits  of  systematic  thinking, 
that  he  embraces  every  subject  with  the  clearness  and 
facility  of  one  prepared  by  previous  study  to  comprehend 
and  explain  it.  So  perfect  is  his  analysis  that  he  extracts 
the  whole  matter,  the  kernel  of  inquiry,  unbroken,  clean 
and  entire.  In  this  process,  such  are  the  instinctive  neat- 
ness and  precision  of  his  mind  that  no  superfluous  thought 
or  even  word  ever  presents  itself,  and  still  he  says  every- 
thing that  seems  appropriate  to  the  subject."  2 

Another  writer  says  :  "  It  was  a  matter  of  surprise  to 
see  how  easily  he  grasped  the  leading  principles  of  a  case 
and  cleared  it  of  all  its  accidental  incumbrances ;  how 
readily  he  evolved  the  true  points  of  the  controversy, 
even  when  it  was  manifest  that  he  never  before  had 
caught  a  glimpse  of  the  learning  upon  which  it  depended. 
Perhaps  no  judge  ever  excelled  him  in  the  capacity  to 
hold  a  legal  proposition  before  the  eyes  of  others  in  such 
various  forms  and  colors.  It  seemed  a  pleasure  to  him 
to  cast  the  darkest  shades  of  objection  over  it,  that"  he 
might  show  how  they  could  be  dissipated  by  a  single 
glance  of  light.      He  would,  by  the  most  subtle  analysis, 

1  Life  of  Lincoln.     Herndon  &  Weik.     Vol.  Ill,  pp.  594,  595. 

2  Sketches  and  Essays  on  Public  Characters.     F.  W.  Gilmer. 


82  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

resolve  every  argument  into  its  ultimate  principles,  and 
then,  with  a  marvelous  facility,  apply  them  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  case."  1 

1  Life  and  Letters.    Judge  Story.    Vol.  II,  p.  505.     For  both  quotations 
see  John  Marshall.     American  Statesmen,  p.  171. 


CHAPTER   III. 

BRIEFS    AND    BRIEF-DRAWING.1 

The  Origin  of  a  Brief. 

STUDY  of  analysis  has  shown  that  the  process  of  find- 
ing what  is  the  question  to  be  discussed  and  what  the 
work  to  be  done  gradually  develops  in  our  minds  a  rough 
diagram  of  the  field  we  are  to  cover.  We  learn  that  there 
is  one  essential  idea,  or  one  essential  group  of  ideas,  to 
prove  true  or  false,  and  that  a  variable  -number  of  other 
ideas  bear  certain  relations  to  the  special  issue  and  to  one 
another,  and  must  be  taken  up  with  some  regard  for  this 
fact.  It  is  evident  that  to  put  this  inherent  structure  on 
paper  must  help  us  in  gathering  evidence,  for  we  shall 
know  what  proof  will  be  needed  first,  and  shall  have 
pockets,  so  to  speak,  into  which  we  may  put  evidence 
bearing  on  the  idea  with  which  each  pocket  is  labeled. 

1  The  system  of  drawing  briefs  explained  in  this  chapter  has  been  de- 
veloped during  the  last  five  years  of  the  work  in  forensics  at  Harvard 
College.  Lest  the  tone  of  the  chapter  may  seem  too  dogmatic  it  may  be 
well  to  say  that  since  the  system  is  an  evolution,  each  year  of  forensic  work 
making  some  improvements  in  it,  teachers  will  probably  find  it  wise  to 
make  some  changes  to  meet  the  particular  needs  of  their  classes.  The 
system  is  offered  simply  as  a  method  which  has  greatly  aided  logical  think- 
ing and  convincing  argumentation  among  Harvard  students,  and  has  been 
used  by  some  recent  graduates  with  marked  success  in  their  practice  as 
lawyers. 


84  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

The  Relation  of  the  Brief  to  the  Summary. 

There  are,  of  course,  many  possible  forms  into  which 
an  outline  can  be  thrown.  It  may  vary  from  a  mere 
set  of  ideas  that  will  suggest  only  to  the  worker  himself 
the  order  in  which  he  wishes  to  take  up  the  parts  of  his 
case  to  an  elaborate  statement  of  the  work  to  be  done 
that  needs  but  little  filling  in  to  be  the  complete  argu- 
ment. The  latter  is  the  lawyer's  ordinary  brief.-  In 
other  words,  the  summary  of  the  work  to  be  done  may 
vary  in  length,  detail,  and  form.  A  student  of  Argu- 
mentative Composition,  however,  draws  up  these  plans 
that  he  may  make  a  clear  and  forcible  presentation  of  his 
case,  and  that  his  outline  may  be  criticized  by  his  teacher 
before  the  forensic,  the  written  argumentation  developed 
from  it,  is  handed  in.  His  plan  must,  therefore,  be  some- 
thing that  will  make  a  person  who  has  not  given  any 
special  thought  to  the  case  in  question  see  exactly  what 
is  to  be  discussed  and  exactly  what  the  student  wishes  to 
do  with  it.  It  must  tell  the  examiner  what  the  question 
is :  must,  that  is,  state  the  proposition  ;  make  clear  in 
what  sense  important  terms  are  used  ;  show  him  the 
origin  of  the  question  ;  by  making  him  understand  what 
is  generally  admitted  in  regard  to  the  subject  and  what 
matter  usually  associated  with  it  is  really  extraneous,  put 
the  special  issue  before  him  ;  and  make  him  see  clearly 
what  relations  the  other  ideas  bear  to  the  main  idea  and 
to  one  another.  That  is,  it  must  convey  to  another  per- 
son just  the  information  that  the  writer  of  the  plan  found 
it  necessary  to  gain  before  he  could  treat  his  topic  intelli- 
gently. Moreover,  this  outline  must  convey  to  a  reader 
an  idea  of  the  general  treatment   the  writer  intends  to 

\\\ 


A  R  G  UMENTA  T/OAr.  85 

give  the  structure  just  mapped  out,  an  idea,  that  is,  of  the 
nature  of  his  evidence. 

Clearly,  then,  mere  rough  notes  or  headings  will  not 
suffice  where  the  writer's  purpose  is  to  make  clear  to 
another  person  just  what  he  wishes  to  do  with  his  case. 
For  instance,  here  is  such  a  set  of  notes  as  a  speaker  full 
of  his  subject  and  with  it  well  mapped  out  in  his  own 
mind  might  hold  in  his  hand  as  he  addressed  an  audience, 
but  to  a  second  person  unacquainted  with  the  topic,  or 
indeed  to  any  one  not  so  conversant  with  it  as  the  speaker, 
the  outline  would  be  hopelessly  vague. 

Brief  A. 

Are  the  Irish  justified  in  Using  Illegal  Measures  of 
Resistance  to  English  Rule  ? 

I.     Definition  of  illegal  measures. 
II.     Illegal  measures  sometimes  justifiable.    Revolution,  Civil 
War,  resistance  to  Fugitive  Slave  Act. 

III.  Respect  in  which  they  are  justifiable. 

IV.  Do  English  rule  and  Irish  resistance  supply  the  condi- 

tions? 
Conclusion. 

As  a  very  slight  summary  to  aid  a  speaker  this  cer- 
tainly might  be  of  use,  but  as  a  brief,  something  to  be 
submitted  to  a  second  person  that  he  may  understand 
what  the  writer  wishes  to  treat  as  his  question  and  how 
he  wishes  to  treat  it,  such  a  summary  fails  completely. 
Evidently,  then,  what  is  wanted  is  not  merely  any  sum- 
mary of  what  is  to  be  done,  but  a  particular  kind  of  plan 
or  summary  that  shall  have  the  greatest  possible  clearness 
of  exposition  with  the  least  number  of  zvords.     That  is  what 


86  ARGUMENTATION. 

the  subdivision  brief  (to  be  explained  in  this  chapter)  of 
the  genus  plan  or  summary  is  supposed  to  offer. 

The  Three  Divisions  of  a  Brief. 

A  good  brief  ordinarily  has  three  divisions  :  the  Intro- 
duction, the  Brief  Proper,  and  the  Conclusion. 

The  Introduction  should  state  as  concisely  as  possible, 
by  suggestive  phrases  of  a  line  or  two,  the  facts  necessary 
to  an  understanding  of  the  discussion  :  namely,  how  the 
question  arose  ;  what  are  the  facts  admitted  by  both 
sides  ;  and,  by  definition  and  exposition,  what  is  the 
exact  point  at  issue.  It  should  clear  away  all  extraneous 
matter  and  should  place  the  essential  idea,  or  group  of 
ideas,  clearly  before  the  reader. 

The  Brief  Proper  should,  by  a  series  of  headings  and 
sub-headings,  very  concisely  make  clear  to  any  intelligent 
reader  the  development  of  the  argument  by  which  the 
writer  expects  to  prove  the  affirmative  or  the  negative  of 
the  question  he  has  clearly  stated  in  the  Introduction. 
The  writer  should  first  select  the  main  ideas  that  prove 
his  conclusion.  These  he  should  arrange  so  that  his  plan 
shall  show  the  relations  they  naturally  bear  to  one  another 
and  to  the  essential  idea  or  group  of  ideas.  In  arranging 
the  material  he  should  as  far  as  possible  regard  climax  (see 
p.  147).  All  the  main  headings  and  sub-headings  should 
read  as  reasojisfor  the  conclusion.  The  correlation  of  all  the 
parts  should  be  distinctly  marked  by  letters  and  numbers. 

The  Conclusion  simply  sums  up  briefly  the  argument, 
showing  clearly  how  it  has  led  to  a  decision  in  the  case. 
This  decision  —  unless  it  is  given  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Brief  Proper  as  the  proposition  —  should  always  be  stated. 


ARGUMENTATION.  87 

Some  Revisions  of  Brief  A. 

The  way  in  which  a  vague  set  of  notes  like  those  in 
Brief  A  may  be  made  over  into  something  that  will  con- 
vey clearly  to  the  mind  of  a  second  person  knowing  little 
or  nothing  of  the  subject  what  the  question  means  and 
what  is  the  work  to  be  done,  the  two  following  revisions 
of  Brief  A  will  show.  The  first  is  made  from  Brief  A 
before  the  reviser  has  done  any  reading  on  the  question. 
Knowing,  however,  the  principles  of  brief-drawing  he  has 
carefully  examined  Brief  A  and  thrown  into  rough  brief 
form  what  it  seems  to  him  the  writer  of  that  brief  prob- 
ably wished  to  do.  A  reader  will  certainly  see  from 
Brief  A  i  what  the  question  is  and  what  the  writer  of  it 
thinks  must  be  done  with  it. 

Brief  A  I. 

Introduction. 

i.    State  first,  very  briefly,  how  the  question  happens  to 
be  under  discussion. 

2.  What  is  illegal?     [Quote  the  Century  Dictionary,  ox 
any  other  good  dictionary.] 

3.  By  this  definition  the  Irish  have  been  guilty  of  illegal 
acts,  in  that 

(1)    They  have  broken  the  laws  of  Great  Britain  in 
regard  to 

(a)  [State  example.] 
(p)  [State  example.] 

4.  Give  a  definition  of  justifiable.     [See  Dictionary.] 

5.  By  means  of  1,  2,  3,  and  4  state  the  special  issue. 


88  ARGUMENTA  TION. 


Brief  Proper. 

I.    Illegal  measures  may  be  justifiable,  for 
i.    Social  reasons. 
(a)  Example. 

2.  Political  reasons. 
(a)   Example. 

3.  Moral  reasons. 
(a)  Example. 

II.    The  cases  in  Ireland  fulfill  these  conditions,  for 

1.  Social  grounds  demanded  the  acts. 
(a)   Example. 

2.  Political  reasons  demanded  them. 
(a)  Example. 

3.  Moral  needs  called  for  the  acts. 
(a)  Example. 

III.  For  all  these  reasons  the  deeds  of  the  Irish,  though 
before  the  law  illegal,  were  justifiable. 

This  Brief  A  1,  however,  is  a  brief  only  by  courtesy,  for 
it  is  necessarily  vague  in  the  sub-divisions  and  does  not 
fulfill  all  the  conditions  just  named  as  characteristic  of  a 
good  brief.  Let  us  now,  therefore,  look  at  this  draft,  no 
longer  in  the  rough,  but  filled  in.  Comparison  of  it  with 
Brief  A  should  make  clear  the  difference  between  a  mere 
summary  and  a  brief.1 

1  A  student  should  note  that  none  of  the  briefs  used  to  illustrate  the 
different  faults  of  brief-drawing  and  how  they  may  be  overcome  is  to  be 
taken  as  a  model  for  anything  except  the  quality  specially  commended  in 
it  by  the  text.  Some  of  them  are  faulty  in  many  respects,  but  only  one 
fault  can  be  pointed  out  at  a  time.  Briefs  that  are  models  throughout  are 
printed  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 


ARGUMENTA  TION. 


Brief  A  2. 
Introduction. 

I.  By  boycotting  and  by  forcible  resistance  to  eviction  and 
other  harsh  measures  of  English  rule  in  Ireland,  the  Irish  have 
raised  the  question  whether  their  wrongs  are  great  enough  to 
justify  illegal  acts. 

II.    Illegal  measures  mean  what  is  contrary  to  the  law  of 
the  land.      [Century  Dictionary. ~] 

III.  By  this  definition  the  Irish  have  been  guilty  of  illegal 
acts,  in  that 

i.    They  have  forcibly  resisted  evictions  made  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Land  Laws. 

(a)  As  individuals. 

(b)  As  mobs. 

2.  They  have  committed  assaults  upon  landlords  who 
had  evicted  tenants  by  law. 

3.  They  have  even  committed  murder  for  reasons  aris- 
ing from  the  laws  in  force  in  Ireland. 

IV.  An  act  is  justifiable  that  is  defensible,  warrantable. 
[Century  Dictionary .]  We  may  judge  the  defensibility  of  an 
act  on  social,  political,  and  moral  grounds. 

V.    The  question  becomes,  then,  this  : 

1.  Can  any  illegal  acts  be  defensible  on  social,  political, 
or  moral  grounds  ? 

2.  Can  the  admittedly  illegal  acts  of  the  Irish  be  de- 
fended on  these  grounds  ? 


90  ARGUMENTATION. 

Brief  Proper. 

I.    Measures  not  strictly  legal  may  be  warrantable,  defen- 
sible, for 

i.    Social  reasons,  for 

(a)  When  social  corruption  in  San  Francisco  in  its 
early  days  was  not  successfully  controlled  by  the 
regularly  appointed  officers,  the  Vigilante  Com- 
mittee removed  the  troubles  by  methods  not 
strictly  legal. 

2.  Political  reasons,  for 

(a)  When  Great  Britain  oppressed  the  American 
Colonies,  they  gained  by  revolt  and  force  what 
they  could  not  gain  by  appeal  and  arbitration. 

3.  Moral  reasons,  for 

(a)  Posterity  has  justified  the  refusal,  at  a  time  of 
religious  persecution,  of  men  to  conform  to  laws 
contrary  to  their  beliefs. 

(b)  Later  generations  approve  the  conduct  of  those 
who  in  the  Underground  Railway  acted  contrary 
to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

II.    All   these    grounds    for    resistance    exist    in    Ireland, 
because 

1.  The  social  exist,  for 

(a)  The  laws  of  England  increase  poverty,  misery, 
crime,  and  death,  among  the  people. 

2.  The  political  exist,  for 

(a)  The  English  laws  depopulate  Ireland,  through 
death  and  immigration. 

3.  The  moral  exist,  for 

(a)  The  sense  of  wrong  and  the  misery  that  increase 
yearly  in  Ireland  are  demoralizing  the  people. 

III.    Moreover,  history   shows   that  compliance,   pleading, 
arbitration,  will  not  make  England  do  Ireland  justice ;  every 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  91 

gain  she  has  made  she  has  forced  by  violent  measures  from 
England,  for 

i  Mr.  Butt,  as  a  leader  pleading  in  Parliament, 
produced  little  or  nothing. 

2  Mr.  Parnell  and  Mr.  Biggar  with  their  method  of 
obstruction  gained  speedy  results. 

3  The  terror  aroused  in  Ireland  by  the  illegal  acts 
already  done  has  aided  the  condition  of  the 
people. 

Conclusion.  —  Because  illegal  resistance  is  sometimes  justifi- 
able, and  all  the  grounds  for  it  exist  in  Ireland ;  because  only 
by  violent  measures,  even  by  illegal  acts,  has  she  gained  the 
little  she  has,  Ireland  is  justified  in  taking  illegal  measures 
against  England's  laws. 

The  brief,  then,  is  a  particular  kind  of  summary,  and  all 
summaries  are  by  no  means  briefs.  This  latter  idea  a 
student  of  Argumentation  should  grasp  once  for  all  at  the 
beginning  of  his  study,  for  until  he  does  grasp  it  he  can- 
not draw  good  briefs. 

The  Work  of  the  Three  Main  Divisions  of  a  Brief. 

If,  now,  we  examine  in  detail  the  three  customary  divi- 
sions of  a  brief,  we  shall  be  able  to  understand  better  the 
work  each  should  do  and  to  see  what  are  the  evils  which 
the  directions  already  given  as  to  brief-drawing  are  in- 
tended to  obviate. 

AN    INTRODUCTION. 

Its  Length. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Introduction  naturally  varies  in 
length.  It  gives,  when  the  question  is  unusual  or  in- 
tricate, all  the  information  suggested  on  p.  86  as  possible 


92  A  K  G  UMENTA  TION. 

in  an  introduction.  Often,  however,  so  much  detail  is 
not  needed.  The  origin  of  the  question  may  be  known 
to  all,  as  in  any  discussion  on  some  topic  of  the  hour. 
For  instance,  when  Lord  Chatham  spoke  in  the  House  of 
Lords  in  favor  of  the  removal  of  the  troops  from  Boston 
there  was  no  need,  at  a  time  when  all  British  eyes  were 
on  the  American  colonies,  to  explain  the  origin  of  the 
question.  Often,  too,  there  is  nothing  to  be  admitted  by 
both  sides  beyond  the  definitions  and  the  origin  of  the 
question,  or  nothing  really  extraneous  that  connects  itself 
with  the  discussion.  Sometimes  there  is  no  need  to 
define  terms,  for  all  are  clear  upon  their  faces.  Plainly, 
then,  the  introduction  to  a  brief  may  vary  from  something 
that  does  little  more  than  state  the  exact  issue  to  be  dis- 
cussed to  a  more  elaborate  plan  that  embodies  two,  three, 
four,  or  all  of  the  possible  duties  of  an  introduction. 

The  Test  of  an  Introduction. 

The  test  of  an  introduction  to  a  brief  is  that  it  shall 
supply  a  reader  with  whatever  information  must  be  needed 
by  him,  if  he  is  to  read  the  brief  proper  understanding^. 
If  for  any  reason  the  necessary  information  has  not  been 
given,  the  significance  of  the  headings  of  the  brief  proper 
will  not  be  apparent  at  sight,  as  should  be  the  case.  For 
example  :  — 

Brief  B. 

Carlyle's  Estimate  of  the  Eighteenth  Century  is 
Incorrect. 

I.    Introduction.     Carlyle's  estimate. 

II.  The  eighteenth  century  was  not  a  "decrepit,  death-sick 
era,"  because  beneath  the  apparent  lassitude  of  the  age  forces 


ARG UMENTA  TION.  93 

were  at  work,  mental,  moral,  and  social,  which  contained  the 
seeds  of  the  best  fruit  that  the  nineteenth  century  has  produced. 
III.    The  eighteenth  century  was  not  an  era  of  hypocrisy  and 
cant,  etc.,  etc. 

The  headings  II.  and  III.  of  what  is  really  the  brief 
proper  in  this  illustration  have  no  significance,  no  conclu- 
siveness as  arguments,  because  the  reason  for  taking  as 
tests  of  the  question,  whether  the  time  was  a  "  decrepit, 
death-sick  era,"  an  "  era  of  hypocrisy  and  cant,"  is  not 
clear.  Why,  even  if  the  statements  made  in  II.  and  III. 
are  proved  true,  Carlyle's  estimate  is  necessarily  false, 
needs  explanation.  All  this  uncertainty  arises  because 
the  writer  has  not  seen  fit  in  his  introductory  matter  to 
quote  Garlyle's  estimate  and  to  bring  out  strongly  that 
the  two  tests  Carlyle  applies  are  those  which  appear  in  II. 
and  III.  Comparison  of  this  brief  with  a  revision  of  it 
will  show  the  advantage  that  comes  from  a  good  introduc- 
tion to  a  brief. 

Brief  B  2.     ' 

Introduction. 

A.  "  There  is  much  lying  yet  undeveloped  in  the  love  of 
Boswell  for  Johnson.  A  cheering  proof,  in  a  time  which  else 
utterly  wanted  and  still  wants  such,  that  living  wisdom  is  quite 
infinitely  precious  to  man,  is  the  symbol  of  the  God-like  to  him, 
which  even  weak  eyes  may  discern ;  that  loyalty,  Discipleship, 
all  that  was  ever  meant  by  Hero-worship,  lives  perennially  in 
the  human  bosom,  and  waits,  even  in  these  dead  days,  only  for 
occasions  to  unfold  it,  and  inspire  all  men  with  it,  and  again 
make  the  world  alive.  James  Boswell  we  can  regard  as  a  prac- 
tical witness,  or  real  martyr,  to  this  everlasting  truth.  A  won- 
derful martyr  if  you  will  ;  and   in  a  time  which  made   such 


94  A  KG  UMENTA  TION. 

martyrdom  doubly  wonderful  :  yet  the  time  and  the  martyr 
perhaps  suited  each  other.  For  a  decrepit,  death-sick  Era, 
when  Cant  had  first  decisively  opened  her  poison-breathing 
lips  to  proclaim  that  God- worship  and  Mammon-worship  are 
one  and  the  same,  that  life  was  a  Lie,  and  the  earth  Beelze- 
bub's, which  the  Supreme  Quack  should  inherit ;  and  so  all 
things  were  fallen  into  the  sere  and  yellow  leaf,  and  fast  hasten- 
ing to  noisome  corruption  :  for  such  an  Era,  perhaps  no  better 
prophet  than  a  parti-colored  Zany-Prophet,  concealing  from 
himself  and  others  his  prophetic  significance  in  such  unex- 
pected vestures,  — was  deserved,  or  would  have  been  in  place." 
— T.  Carlyle.  "Essay  on  BoswelFs  Life  of  Johnson."  Essays, 
H.  &  M.,  1881.     [pp.  82-83.] 

B}    Briefly,  then,  Carlyle  asserts  that  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury was 

1.  Decrepit,  death-sick,  a  time  when  all  things  were 
hastening  to  noisome  corruption. 

2.  The  reign  of  Cant  instead  of  Truth. 

C.    The  question  becomes,  then  :  Are  these  two  statements 
correct  ? 

Brief  Proper. 

I.    We  can  properly  assume  that  there  is  good  ground  for 
differing  with  Carlyle  as  to  his  statements,  for 

(a)  An  historian  of  at  least  equal  rank  with  Carlyle, 
Lecky,  draws,  in  his  History  of  European  Morals, 
quite  opposite  conclusions  as  to  the  Eighteenth 
Century. 
II.  The  Eighteenth  Century  was  not  the  triumph  of  Cant. 
A.  Because  Swift  and  Johnson,  men  who  despised 
the  false,  the  untrue,  were  the  leaders  of 
thought. 

1  A  reader  will  see  how  much  the  brief  gains  in  clearness  from  this 
statement  of  the  gist  of  the  long  and  involved  quotation. 


ARGUMENTATION.  95 

B.  Because  an  earnest  search  for  truth  was  going 
on,  for 

(a)    It  was   the  period  of  the  great  deistic 
controversy. 

C.  Because  it  was  a  time  of  reforms,  for 

(a)    Prison  reforms  were  beginning,  Charity 
Schools  were  establishing,  etc. 

III.  The  Eighteenth  Century  was  not  a  decrepit,  death-sick 
era,  for  it  contained  the  beginnings  of  the  best  the 
Nineteenth  Century  has  produced. 

A.  Mentally,  for 

1.    The  scientific  spirit  in  thought  arose. 

B.  Socially,  for 

1.  Human  sympathy  broadened;  there  was 
growth  in  the  feeling  of  the  brotherhood 
of  man. 

C.  Morally,  for 

1.  There  was  a  reaction  from  Restoration 
manners. 

IV.  Since,  then,  the  best  literary  thought  of  the  time  was 
sound  and  wholesome  ;  since  the  period  produced 
reforms  ;  since  the  best  in  this  century  is  the  result  of 
work  begun  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  Carlyle's  esti- 
mate seems  incorrect. 

For    another  illustration  of   this   very  important    rule 
consider  the  following  brief. 

Brief  C. 

Is  the  Gothenburg  Plan  for  Solving  the  Liquor  Ques- 
tion Practicable  in  Massachusetts  ? 

Proposition  : 
The  Gothenburg  plan  is  practicable  in  Massachusetts. 

A.  Introduction. 

B.  The  evils  of  the  present  system  of  liquor^seJIhii 


i-r\/ 


96  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

C.  Gothenburg  system  : 

(a)  Denned,  (i)  its  aim,  (2)  ground  idea. 

(b)  Advantages. 
(V)    Disadvantages. 

D.  Argument : 

1 .  Has  been  tried  successfully  in  Norway  and  Sweden. 
No  reason  why  it  should  not  prosper  in  Massachu- 
setts. 

2.  It  is  lawful. 

3.  Money  is  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  at 
large. 

4.  Consumers  of  liquor  would  be  satisfied. 

5.  Prohibitionists  would  be  satisfied. 

6.  Increase  in  savings-bank  deposits  in  Sweden. 

7.  Modifications. 

8.  The  decrease  of  crime. 

9.  The  decrease  of  the  consumption  of  liquor. 

E.  Conclusion. 

It  must  be  clear  at  once  to  any  thoughtful  reader  of 
this  brief  that  2-6  of  the  "  Argument "  lack  all  convincing- 
ness, even  significance.  He  will  ask  himself :  "  Even 
though  I  see  that  the  plan  must  be  lawful  if  it  is  to  be 
practicable,  why  must  it  distribute  money  for  the  public 
at  large,  why  must  it  satisfy  consumers  of  liquor  and 
Prohibitionists  ;  why  are  these  very  important  tests  ? 
Moreover,  granted  that  they  are,  what  have  I  read  in  this 
brief,  what  do  I  now  read,  that  shows  the  truth  of  these 
statements?"  To  appreciate  the  significance,  the  force, 
of  the  headings,  a  reader  needs  the  information  to  which 
the  writer  refers  vaguely  in  his  introduction  in  the  words  : 
"  The  evils  of  the  present  system  of  liquor-selling  ;  the 
Gothenburg  System,  (a)  defined,  (1)  its  aim,  (2)  ground 


AR  G  UMENTA  TION.  97 

idea."  He  needs,  too,  information  which  the  writer  does 
not  give  him  as  to  the  tests  that  must  be  applied  if  the 
plan  is  to  be  judged,  not,  as  the  writer  seems  to  think, 
good  in  theory,  but  practicable  in  Massachusetts.  Never, 
in  an  introduction  to  a  brief,  therefore,  write,  "Definition 
of  the  terms,"  "  Provisions  of  the  treaty,"  "The  conduct 
of  Hamilton,"  "  Carlyle's  estimate,"  "The  Gothenburg 
system  defined,"  "Sources  of  the  trouble,"  i.e.,  Never  in 
an  introduction  use  vagne  phrases  referring  to  important 
matters  that  a  reader  must  understand  if  the  significance  of 
the  headings  of  the  brief  proper  as  tests  is  to  be  clear  to 
him.  Instead,  state  the  necessary  ideas  so  that  he  cannot 
fail  to  grasp  their  meaning.  Be  as  brief  always  as  is  pos- 
sible without  sacrificing  clearness.  The  best  phrasing  for 
such  information  is  a  statement.  That  is,  it  is  better  to 
say  :  "  Carlyle  asserted  this  or  that  (quotation)  "  rather 
than  "Carlyle's  estimate";  "France  and  the  United 
States  made  a  treaty  in  1778,"  "Its  provisions  were," 
etc.,  rather  than  "The  treaty  of  1778,"  "Its  provisions." 
Comparison  of  Brief  C.  with  the  brief  that  follows  will 
show  the  clearness  and  the  effectiveness  gained  by  carry- 
ing out  the  directions  given  thus  far. 

Brief  Cl. 

Would    the    Norwegian    System    of    Liquor-Selling    be 
Practicable  in  Massachusetts? 

Introduction. 

I.1   The  Norwegian  System. 

A.    The  liquor  traffic  in  any  town  is  controlled  by  a 
single  stock  company.     This  company  is  licensed 


Report  of  the  House,  pp.  90-167. 


98  ARGUMENTATION. 

to  sell  liquors,  and  its  laws  are  approved  by  state 
authorities.  It  invests  only  the  capital  necessary 
to  conduct  the  business,  and  receives  in  return 
but  a  fair  per  cent  on  the  capital  invested.  The 
profits  go  to  benefit  objects  established  for  the 
public  good. 

B.  Its  saloons  are  conducted  by  managers  who  are 
paid  fixed  salaries,  who  are  allowed  to  sell  nothing 
for  their  own  profit,  and  who  must  order  all  liquor 
from  the  company's  warehouses. 

C.  As  few  saloons  as  possible  to  supply  the  demand 
are  provided.  The  amount  of  liquor  sold  to  each 
consumer  is  limited.  Liquor  may  not  be  sold  at 
all  to  minors  or  to  intoxicated  persons.  The 
consumer  must  leave  the  place  on  finishing  his 
dram.  Rules  governing  the  place  and  price-lists 
are  posted  in  its  bar-rooms. 

D.  That  the  company  may  not  violate  its  principles, 
its  books  and  the  details  of  the  business  are 
open  to  the  inspection  of  state  authorities,  and 
annual  reports  of  the  details  are  published.  That 
the  company  may  enforce  its  principles,  it  employs 
its  own  detectives  to  see  that  its  licenses  are  not 
infringed,  and  it  employs  inspectors  to  examine 
the  accounts  of  its  managers  to  see  that  the  rules 
of  its  bar-rooms  are  executed. 

II.1  A  bill  to  introduce  the  system  came  before  the  Mas- 
sachusetts legislature  last  spring. 
A.  By  the  bill  shareholders  could  receive  but  five 
per  cent  on  the  capital.  It  further  specified  that 
profits  should  go  to  benefit  the  public ;  that  the 
business  should  be  subject  to  the  inspection  of 
the    Savings   Bank    Commissioner ;    that   annual 

1  Report  of  House,  pp.  6-15. 


ARGUMENTATION.  99 

reports  of  the  details  should  be  published  ;  that 
the  company  should  be  subject  to  existing  penal- 
ties for  violation  of  license  laws  ;  that  saloons 
could  not  number  more  than  one  to  every  ten 
thousand  inhabitants  ;  and  that  when  adopted  by 
any  town  the  system  should  run  three  years. 
B.  The  object  of  the  bill  was  to  make  the  system 
permissive,  not  obligatory. 

III.  The  desirability  of  such  a  system  is  evident  from 

A.  The  acknowledged  evils  of  our  present  system. 

B.  The  fact   that  Cambridge,  though  "  no-license," 
suffers  from  the  high  license  in  Boston. 

IV.  Though  the  desirability  is  admitted,  there  is  fear  that 
the  system  is  not  practicable,  i.e.,  could  not  be  put  into 
practice,  for 

A.  Prohibition,  as  is  well   known,  could  not  be  en- 
forced when  a  law. 

B.  The  system  might  be,  as  is  the  present  traffic,  a 
political  evil. 

Correlating  Introductions. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  this  last  brief  the  statements 
made  are  carefully  marked  by  letters  and  numbers  which 
accurately  show  the  relations  of  the  sentences  to  one 
another.  The  value  of  this  careful  correlation  of  the 
introductory  statements  will  be  clear  if  we  compare  a 
correlated  and  an  uncorrelated  introduction. 

Here  is  an  uncorrelated  introduction  :  — 


100  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

Brief  D. 

Does  the  Gorge  of  the  Niagara  River  afford  a  Suffi- 
cient Index  of  the  Duration  of  Post-Glacial  Time? 

Introduction. 

It  is  admitted  by  all  that  the  gorge,  as  we  now  know  it,  has 
been  cut  since  the  close  of  the  ice  age,  that  it  is  increasing  in 
length  at  the  cataract  end,  and  that  the  cataract  is  the  cause 
of  the  increase.  In  attempting  to  estimate  the  duration  of 
post-glacial  time,  certain  geologists  like  Wright,  Spencer,  and 
Lyell,  state  that  it  is  merely  necessary  to  determine  the  rate  at 
which  the  length  of  the  gorge  is^jiow  increasing,  and  then  to 
compute  from  the  known  length  6i  the  gorge  the  time  it  has 
taken  to  form  the  whole.  Other  geologists  such  as  Gilbert 
and  Shaler  assert,  however,  that  the  rate  of  erosion  has  varied 
for  several  causes,  and  also  that  there  was  a  period  of  unknown 
duration  between  the  close  of  the  ice  age  and  the  birth  of  the 
river,  and  that,  therefore,  the  methods  and  results  of  Wright, 
Spencer,  and  Lyell  are  inaccurate. 

In  the  following  the  same  material  is  properly  corre- 
lated :  — 

Introduction. 

I.    It  is  admitted  by  all  geologists  that 

(a)    The  gorge  of  the  Niagara  River,  as  we  know  i 

has  been  cut  since  the  close  of  the  ice  age. 
(J?)    It  is  increasing  in  length  at  the  cataract  end. 
(c)    The  cataract  is  the  cause  of  the  increase. 
II.    Certain  geologists, — among  them  Wright,  Lyell,  and 
Spencer,  —  in  attempting  to  estimate  the  duration  of 
post-glacial  time,  think  it  necessary 
(a)    Merely  to  determine  the  rate  at  which  the  length 
of  the  gorge  is  now  increasing, 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  101 

(b)    And  then  to  compute  from  the  known  length  of 

the   gorge   the   time   it   has  taken  to  form  the 

whole. 

III.    Other  geologists  —  among  them  Gilbert  and  Shaler  — 

think  that  the  methods  and  the  results  of  Wright  and 

the  others  are  inaccurate  in  that 

(a)  The  rate  of  erosion  has  varied  for  several  causes. 

(b)  There  was  a  period  of  unknown  duration  between 
the  close  of  the  ice  age  and  the  birth  of  the 
river. 

Certainly  it  is  easier  to  understand  the  origin  of  the 
question,  the  facts  admitted  by  both  sides,  etc.,  in  the 
second  brief.  Such  correlating  both  makes  the  ideas 
clearer  and  saves  time.  Care  should  be  used  in  correlating 
the  parts  of  an  introduction  to  see  that  the  lettering  or  the 
numbering  suggests  exactly  the  relation  of  any  idea  to  those 
ideas  which  surround  it.  In  Brief  C,  for  instance,  A,  B,  C, 
and  D  are  not  really  on  the  same  footing.  A  and  D  are  ; 
so  are  B  and  C,  but  they  are  subordinate  to  A.  The  writer 
should  have  correlated  his  work  in  one  of  these  two  ways  : 

i. 

Introduction. 

A.  The  evils  of  the  present  system  of  liquor-selling. 

B.  Gothenburg  system,  etc. 

Argument. 


or 


A.  Introduction. 

i.    The  evils  of  the  present  system  of  liquor-selling. 
2.    Gothenburg  system,  etc. 

B.  Argument. 


102  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

In  a  word,  ideas  of  equal  value  should  be  marked  by 
letters  or  numbers  of  the  same  kind.  A  change  in  num- 
bers or  letters  should  denote  a  change  in  the  relations  of 
the  material. 

Double  Marking. 

A  fault  in  correlation  that  often  causes  considerable 
confusion  is  double  marking.     Here  is  a  case  of  it  :  — 

Brief  E. 

Did  the  Council  of  Constance  maintain  the  Principle 
that  it  was  necessary  for  the  church  to  keep 
Faith  with  a  Heretic? 

I.    Introduction  :    (a)  Plea  for  impartiality ;  (p)  Argument, 
Outline  of. 
II.    i.  Definitions   of  important  words  and  phrases  as  (a) 
Council  of  Constance,  (p)  Maintain,  (c)  Church,  (d) 
Heretic. 
2.  Restatement  of  proposition. 

It  is  clear  that  the  second  paragraphias  here  treated  as 
both  II.  and  I.  But  evidently  it  cannot  be  both,  for  if  it 
is  the  first,  it  is  of  equal  value  with  I. ;  if  it  is  the  second, 
it  is  subordinate  to  I.  The  question  is  which  is  the 
correct  marking.  Since  correlating  is  used  simply  to 
show  rapidly  the  relations  of  the  ideas  one  to  another, 
this  over-correlating  defeats  its  own  ends  and  is  no  better 
than  none  at  all.  Really  I .  should  be  struck  out.  Then 
the  correct  relations  of  the  parts  are  seen  at  once.  In  a 
brief  one  letter  or  figure  is  sufficient  for  one  idea  or  state- 
ment. Correct  correlating  is  not  usually  difficult  in  an 
introduction,  but  as  we  shall  soon  see  it  is  not  always 
easy  in  the  brief  proper. 


ARG  U ME  NT  A  TION.  103 

The  Proper  Connectives  in  an  Introduction. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  the  revisions  of  poor  briefs  thus 
far  given  that  the  component  parts  are  connected  not  only 
by  carefully  chosen  numbers  and  letters,  but  also  by 
different  conjunctions.  The  selection  of  these  may,  with 
one  suggestion,  be  left  to  the  individual  writer.  The 
suggestion  is  this  :  since  we  shall  soon  see  that  the  con- 
junctions for  and  because- are  invaluable  in  the  brief  proper 
to  connect  headings  and  sub-heads  which  stand  in  the 
relationship  of  proposition  and  proof,  it  is  helpful  not  to 
use  them  in  the  introduction,  for  in  this  we  are  supposed 
to  give  only  what  is  not  argumentative,  and  the  presence 
of  for  or  because  makes  a  reader  feel  as  if  the  argument 
had  begun  before  it  should.  The  following  is  a  specimen 
of  neat  correlating  in  an  introduction  without  the  use  of 
the  two  signs  of  argumentation. 

Brief  F. 

Are  the  Astronomical  Conditions  Described  in  Croll's 
Theory  Sufficient  to  account  for  the  Climatic 
Conditions  of  the  Glacial  Epoch  ? 

Introduction. 

4.    Geological  deposits  and  markings  show  that  during  the 
Glacial  Epoch 
I.  Great  regions  in  northern  continents  which  now  have 
a  temperate  climate  were  sheeted  with  glaciers,  e.g., 

(a)  Europe  more  or  less  completely  as  far  as  the 
fiftieth  parallel.1 

(b)  North  America  almost  entirely  as  far  as  the 
fortieth  parallel.1 

1  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  Principles  of  Geology,  ed.  1867,  vol.  I,  p.  194- 


104  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

II.  These  glaciers  were  confluent,  not  only  filling  the 
valleys,  but  flowing  over  mountains.1 

III.  They  are  known  to  have  been  a  mile  and  a  half  deep 
in  New  England,  and  were  perhaps  deeper  in  other 
places.2 
B.    Present  study  of  glaciers  shows  certain  conditions  to  be 

necessary  for  their  formation,  viz.* 

I.  Cold  —  either  from  altitude  or  high  latitude  —  for 

the  formation  and  accumulation  of  snow. 
II.  Humidity,  to  provide  the  material  for  snow. 
III.  Alternate  thawings  and  freezings,  for  the  consolida- 
tion of  snow  and  ice. 
C.    Possible  causes  for  the  Glacial  Epoch. 

I.  Geographical. 

(a)  Grouping  of  the  lands  in  polar  regions.  Sir 
Charles  LyelPs  theory. 

(b)  General  elevation  and  broadening  of  northern 
continents,  together  with  the  deflection  of  the 
Gulf  Stream  into  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

II.  Astronomical. 

(a).  Various  theories  which  have  been  exploded.4 
(6)  Croll's  theory.5 

i.  The  eccentricity  of  the  earth's  orbit  varies, 
the  length  of  the  major  axis  changing ;  and 
thus  the  ratio  between  aphelion  and  peri- 
helion   distance    varies,   aphelion  and  peri- 

1  Shaler  and  Davis,  Illustrations  of  the  Earth 's  Surface,  Glaciers,  ed.  1881, 
p.  38.  2  Idem,  p.  45. 

3  Le  Conte,  Elements  of  Geology,  ed.  1894,  p.  46. 

4  Idem,  p.  590. 

5  Though  what  follows  is  carefully  done,  it  at  best  shows  the  need  in 
this,  as  in  many  briefs,  of  a  diagram.  Only  by  a  drawing  can  this  theory 
be  made  clear  to  the  general  reader. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  105 

helion  being  respectively  the  earth's  greatest 
and  shortest  distances  from  the  sun.1 

2.  The  precession  of  the  equinoxes  causes  the 
seasons  of  each  hemisphere  to  occur  succes- 
sively in  every  part  of  the  orbit,  e.g., 

(a)  Our  winter  occurs  now  during  perihelion, 
but  after  about  ten  thousand  years,  we 
shall  have  aphelion  winter.2 

3.  "A  high  condition  of  eccentricity  tends,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  produce  an  accumulation  of 
snow  and  ice  in  the  hemisphere  whose  win- 
ters occur  in  aphelion."3 

D.  We  are  to  consider,  then,  whether  or  not  concurrence  of 
maximum  eccentricity  and  aphelion  winter  is  a  sufficient 
cause  for  the  glaciers  which  are  known  to  have  existed 
during  the  Glacial  Epoch. 


Prejudiced  Introductions. 

A  kind  of  introduction  to  avoid  is  the  prejudiced  and 
therefore  prejudicial.  This  states  as  indisputable  matters 
which  are  debatable.  A  shrewd  reader  will  at  once  chal- 
lenge these  prejudiced  statements,  and  the  careless  writer 
will  be  forced  to  begin  debating  in  his  introduction,  before 
he  is  really  ready.  If  the  writer's  statements  are  not 
challenged,  he  has  won  his  case  before  he  begins  to  argue, 
for  his  reader  tacitly  assents  to  statements  that  grant  him 
everything  for  which  he  can  ask.  Here  is  a  prejudiced 
introduction  :  — 


1  Shaler  and  Davis,  Illustrations  of  the  Earth's  Surface,  Glaciers,  ed. 
1881,  p.  74. 

2  Godfrey,  A  Treatise  on  Astronomy,  ed.  1880,  p.  22. 

3  See  note  1. 


106  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

Brief  G. 

Was  it  Wise  for  Adams  to  send  the  Envoys  to  France 

in  1799? 

I.    Relations  between  France  and  the  U.S.  in  1799. 

A.  France  had  held  the  U.S.  in   contempt,  and  had  in- 
sulted the  nation  by : 

(a)  The  conduct  of  her  own  ministers  in  the  U.S. 

1.  In  1793  Genet  had  acted  in  a  presumptuous 
and  overbearing  manner,  trying  to  fit  out  ships 
and  recruit  men  for  France,  as  if  the  U.S. 
were  a  dependent  province. 

2.  Adet  had  tried  to  influence  the  election  of 
1796. 

(J?)   Her  treatment  of  our  envoys. 

1.  The  recall  of  Gouverneur  Morris  had  been  de- 
manded, because  he  did  not  favor  the  excesses 
of  the  French  Revolution. 

2.  C.  C.  Pinckney  was  not  received,  because  the 
Directory  were  angry  at  the  recall  of  Monroe 
and  at  the  result  of  the  election  of  1796. 

3.  The  disgraceful  X.  Y.  Z.  demands  for  a  bribe 
were  a  direct  insult. 

(c)  By  her  depredations  on  our  commerce,  contrary 
to  treaty  and  neutral  rights. 

B.  (a)  Adams    in    1798    declared    diplomatic    relations 

broken  off. 
(/;)  An  army  and  a  navy  were  organized ;  merchants' 

vessels  were  armed ;  and  several  successes  gained 

at  sea. 
C.    France  became  alarmed,  and  in  an  indirect  way  sig- 
nified a  desire  to  renew  negotiations. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  107 

The  writer  of  this  brief  begs  the  question  entirely 
before  he  reaches  the  brief  proper.  What  a  reader  needs 
to  know  is  that  after  the  United  States  had,  in  1798,  for 
reasons  which  seemed  to  it  good,  broken  off  diplomatic 
relations  with  France  and  prepared  for  war,  it  sent,  in 
1799,  envoys  to  France  to  negotiate  with  her.  The 
general  grounds  for  the  original  breaking  off  of  diplomatic 
relations,  the  reason  stated  for  sending  envoys  should  be 
given,  but  evidently  the  writer  must  not  in  starting 
commit  himself  as  to  the  justice  or  the  injustice  of  the 
reasons  for  which  the  United  States  broke  off  diplomatic 
relations,  the  satisfactoriness  of  the  way  in  which  France 
asked  for  negotiations.  Proof  in  regard  to  these  matters 
must  settle  the  question  one  way  or  the  other.  This 
writer,  however,  has  no  compunctions  about  treating 
these  matters,  and  in  the  heading  I.  A  with  its  sub-heads 
(a)  1,  2,  (b)  1,  2,  3,  and  (c)  settles  with  a  set  of  assertions 
the  very  matters  which  must  be  debated.  If  we  challenge 
these  statements,  he  must  argue  before  he  has  put  before 
us  the  necessary  introductory  material,  —  for  most  of  that 
is  in  B  and  C.  Such  a  method  means  confusing,  in- 
effective work.  If  we  do  not  challenge  his  statements,  we 
have  granted  him  more  than  half  his  case :  namely,  that  the 
United  States  was  entirely  justified  in  breaking  off  diplo- 
matic relations  and,  unless  a  spirit  of  great  repentance 
and  conciliation  was  shown  by  France,  was  not  justified 
in  sending  envoys.  When  the  writer  adds  in  C  that 
France,  after  all  this  evil-doing,  signified  her  desires  only 
in  an  indirect  way,  we  feel  more  strongly  still  that  the 
United  States  could  not  have  been  justified  in  sending 
envoys.     That  is,  the  writer  really  begs  the  second  point. 

If  this  brief  is  compared  with  Brief  D  or  F,  the  value 


108  ARGUMENTATION. 

of  the  unprejudiced  introduction  will  be  evident.  The 
prejudice  in  an  introduction  is  not  usually  difficult  to  de- 
tect, for  some  phrase  like  "presumptuous  and  overbear- 
ing manner,"  "  the  disgraceful  X.  Y.  Z.  demands,"  of  this 
writer  will  show  the  reader  that  he  is  dealing  with  a  man 
whose  vocabulary  is  not  impartial,  and  who,  therefore,  is 
probably  not  impartial  in  his  opinions. 

Narrowing  the  Question. 

It  is  often  helpful  when  the  introduction  is  long,  or  the 
exact  topic  to  be  discussed  differs  in  wording  from  the 
question  heading  the  brief,  to  state  as  the  last  division  of 
the  introduction  to  just  what  the  discussion  narrows. 
This  has  been  done  in  Brief  Ci,p.  99,  and  in  division  D 
under  Brief  F,  p.  105. 

Summary. 

In  the  introduction  of  a  brief,  then,  a  writer  phrases 
only  what  both  sides  must  admit  to  be  true.  This  he 
words  as  briefly  and  yet  clearly  as  he  possibly  can,  in  care- 
fully correlated  statements.  He  makes  clear  the  exact 
issue  to  which  the  discussion  narrows.  The  final  test 
of  his  work  in  an  introduction  is  that  it  shall  lead 
clearly  to  the  brief  proper,  giving  a  reader  just  the  infor- 
mation he  needs  if  the  significance  of  the  statements 
made  in  the  brief  proper,  the  trend  of  the  argument,  is  to 
be  clear  to  him. 

THE   B.RIEF   PROPER. 

In  the  brief  proper  a  writer  phrases  as  succinctly  as 
possible  the  ideas  which  he  thinks  must  be  proved  true  if 
his  conclusion  is  to  be  admitted.     For  the  support  of  these 


ARGUMENTATION.  109 

ideas  he  gathers  proof,  —  whatever  generates  belief  in  the 
mind  of  a  reader,  —  and  he  must  convey  to  his  reader  some 
idea  of  the  nature  of  the  proof  by  which  he  intends  to 
show  the  truth  of  each  of  the  ideas  he  phrases  in  the 
brief  proper.  The  proof  that  a  writer  will  use  divides  it- 
self roughly  into  two  parts:  direct  proof  and  refutation. 
When  a  writer  simply  states  an  idea  of  his  own,  and  sup- 
ports it,  that  is  direct  proof  ;  when  he  takes  an  idea 
urged  against  him  by  his  opponent,  and  tries  to  overcome 
it,  he  refutes.  If  the  objection  is  a  broad  one,  —  to  the 
writer's  case  as  a  whole,  —  it  should  stand  by  itself ;  if  it 
is  an  objection  to  some  division  or  subdivision  of  the  writ- 
er's work,  he  will  meet  it  best  in  treating  that  division  or 
subdivision.  That  is,  his  idea  is  proved  true  not  only  by 
proving  a,  b,  and  c,  reasons  for  it,  but  by  disproving  the 
statement  d  in  regard  to  it  made  by  his  opponent. 

The  Two  Kinds  of  Refutation. 

When  Lord  Chatham,  in  urging  the  removal  of  the 
troops  from  Boston,  argued  that  they  should  be  with- 
drawn because 

A.  It  will    show   the    willingness   of   the    English   to  treat 
amicably ; 

C.  The  means  of  enforcing  the  measures  of  Parliament  have 
failed ; 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  by  the  aid  of  the  army  to  enforce  its 
measures  the  result  will  be  bad ; 

he  stated  his  own  ideas,  used  direct  proof. 

When,  however,  he  urged  the  withdrawal  of  the  troops 
because 


110  ARGUMENTATION. 

E.  The  statement  that,  the  armies  in  America  cannot  last  is 
untrue,  for 

i.  The  evidence  of  the  "  commercial  bodies  "  is  unreli- 
able, for,  etc., 

he  answered  an  objection  made  by  his  opponents  to  his 
main  proposition.  This  part  of  his  work,  then,  E,  is 
general  refutation. 

If,  now,  we  look  at  the  development  of  division  C  of  his 
work,  we  shall  see  that  a  third  kind  of  work  appears  in  it. 

C.  The  means   of  enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures  have 
failed,  for 

i.  The  army  of  General  Gage  is  "penned  up,  —  pin- 
ing in  inglorious  inactivity." 

2.  Though    it   is    said   that  the  army   in    America  is 
a  safeguard,  yet  this  is  not  true,  for 

(a)  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 

(b)  It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans. 

3.  Though   it  is  said  that  General  Gage  is  needlessly 
inactive,  yet  this  is  untrue,  for 

(a)  Any  activity  on  his  part  would  mean  "  civil 
and  unnatural  war." 

Here  Lord  Chatham  shows  the  truth  of  the  sentence  C, 
by  giving  an  idea  1  of  his  own,  and  by  refuting  two  state- 
ments of  his  opponents,  2  and  3,  which  they  make  in  con- 
tradiction of  his  assertion  C.  The  work  done  in  C,  2  and 
3,  is,  then,  special  refutation,  for  the  objections  met  are 
not  made  to  the  main  proposition,  that  the  troops  should 
be  withdrawn  from  Boston,  but  to  one  of  the  ideas  by 
which  Lord  Chatham  hoped  to  make  good  that  statement. 
Objections  made  to  the  main  proposition  call,  then,  for 
general  refutation  ;  objections  raised  to  other  parts  of  the 
work  than  the  main  proposition  call  for  special  refutation. 


ARG UMENTA  TION.  1 1 1 

How  to  Arrange  Refutation. 

Special  objections  should  be  treated  at  once  when  they 
arise,  for,  as  the  illustration  just  given  shows,  they  block 
the  movement  of  the  argument  until  they  are  cleared 
away.  There  is,  however,  no  one  rule  for  arranging  general 
objections.  If  they  are  important,  and  generally  accepted 
as  true,  it  is  often  wise  to  treat  them  before  expounding 
one's  own  views  on  the  question.  Doing  this,  a  student 
will  prevent  his  audience  from  silently  controverting  his 
ideas,  as  he  develops  them,  with  arguments  that  he  is 
entirely  prepared  to  answer.  The  following  brief  shows 
this  arrangement  of  the  refutation:  — 

Brief  H. 

Is  the  Expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Russia  Justifiable? 

Introduction. 

I.  After  the  anti-Jewish  riots  of  1881  in  Russia,  a  number 
of  laws  called  the  May  Laws  were  issued  with  the  impe- 
rial sanction,  May  3,  1882  ;  the  gist  of  which  was  the 
restriction  of  the  Jews  to  Poland  and  the  towns  within 
what  is  known  as  the  Jewish  Pale  of  Settlement,  viz.: 
Little,  Western,  and  Southern  Russia ;  and  the  avowed 
object  of  which  was  "the  complete,  though  gradual, 
withdrawal  of  the  Jews  from  the  open  country."  l 
II.  In  the  winter  of  1889-90,  these  laws,  which  had  been 
allowed  to  fall  into  abeyance,  began  to  be  enforced  with 
the  greatest  strictness,  and  the  Jews  were  driven  back 
in  great  numbers  to  the  towns  within  the  Pale. 

1  The  Persecution  of  the  Jews  in  Russia,  p.  9.  Issued  by  the  Russo- 
Jewish  Committee,  London,  1890. 


112  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

III.  An   act    is    justifiable    that    is    defensible,    warrantable 

(Century  Dictionary).1 
IV.  Both  parties  agree2   that  the  expulsion    was  not   made, 
primarily,    on    religious   grounds,    therefore    I    shall    set 
aside   this  consideration  in  my   discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

Refutation. 

A.  It  is  claimed  that  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  is  defensible  on 
I.   Economic  and  social  grounds,  for 
i.  The  Jews  are  a  parasitic  race. 

(x)  They  do  not  engage  in  productive  labor,  neither 
(a)  Manual  labor,  nor 
(6)  Agriculture. 
(y)  By  exploitation  they  abscrb  the  national  wealth. 
2.  They  demoralize  the  people  and  cause  the  drunken- 
ness of  the  peasants,  for 
(x)  They  sell  them  "vodka." 
II.  National  grounds,  because 

i.  The  Jews  do  not  assimilate  with  the  people,  but  are 
exclusive  and  "  tribal."  3 
(x)  They  unite  in  the  corporation  of  the  Kabal  for 

the  exploitation  of  the  Christians. 
(y)  They  are  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  people 
by  the  rite  of  circumcision. 
2.  They  are  not  loyal  subjects. 
(x)  They  shun  military  service. 
(y)  They  are  the  source  of  Nihilism  and  disaffec- 
tion. 

1  A  reader  should  note  that  the  writer  of  this  Brief,  though  he  seems 
satisfied  with  a  very  vague  definition,  really  is  not,  and  as  he  shows  in  A 
I.  and  II.,  has  tests  in  mind  by  which  to  judge  "defensible,  warrantable." 

2  Goldwin  Smith,  in  North  American  Review,  August,  1891,  p.  139, 
affirmative;  Isaac  Besht-Bendarid,  in  North  American  Review,  September, 
1 891,  p.  258,  negative. 

8  Goldwin  Smith,  same  reference,  p.  138. 


ARGUMENTATION.  113 

B.  The  expulsion  of  the  Jews  is  not  defensible  on 
I.   Economic  and  social  grounds,  for 
i1.  The  Jews  are  not  a  parasitic  race. 

(x)  In  several  of  the  towns  of  the  Pale  they  form 
90  per  cent  of  the  whole  population,  and  in 
all  the  towns  a  large  majority,  and  it  is  absurd 
to  suppose  they  could  be  supported  by  the 
remaining  10  per  cent  or  20  per  cent. 
(xl)  They  do  engage  in  productive  labor. 

(a)  In  1888  12  per  cent  of  all  the  Jews  within 
the  Pale  were  artisans,  a  larger  proportion 
than  the  same  class  maintains  in  France 
(10  per  cent)  or  Prussia  (9.1  per  cent). 
(a)  In  fact  the  Jews  very  nearly  monopolize 
the  manual   trades  within  the  Pale,  per- 
forming even  the  roughest  labor,  as  black- 
smiths, diggers,  carriers,  etc. 
(c)  There  are,  besides,  a  considerable  number 
of  artisans  outside  the  Pale,  who  are  per- 
mitted  to   live  outside  the  Pale  because 
of  their  occupation. 
(x2)  If  they  do  not  engage  extensively  in  agricul- 
ture in  Russia,  it  is  not  because  they  are  not  in- 
clined to,  but  because  they  are  forbidden  by 
the  laws 

(a)  To  own  or  lease  land  ; 

(b)  To  live  in  the  country. 

(xz)  They  have  shown  themselves  to  be  success- 
ful agriculturists,  when  given  an  opportunity. 

1.  In  Hungary  and  Turkey  in  the  past. 

2.  In    the  colonies    recently   founded   in    the 
Argentine  Republic  and  in  Palestine. 

(x*)  The  failure  of  the  colonies  founded  by  Nicholas 
was  not  due  to  the  Jews  but  to  the  conditions 
by  which  they  were  restricted  and  hampered. 


1 14  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

(y1)  It  is  true  that  many  of  the  Jews  are  middle- 
men, yet  this  is  not  a  good  reason  for  expelling 
them,  for 

i .  They  have  been  forced  to  become  such  by  the 
laws  that  shut  them  out  from 
(a)  The  professions, 
(J?)  All  official  posts,  from  mayor  down  to 

school  teacher, 
(V)  Agriculture,  and 

(d)  Shut  them  into  the  towns,  which  become 
so  crowded  that  there  is  not  enough 
work  for  all. 

2.  All  middlemen  are  not  exploiters. 

3.  The  number  of  exploiters  must  be  small,  for 
nearly  80  per  cent  of  the  Jews  are  wretchedly 
poor,  and  half  of  the  rest  are  artisans. 

4.  The  repression  of  the  Jewish  exploiters  would 
create  a  monopoly  for  the  Orthodox  exploiter, 
and  so  really  raise  the  interest  for  the  ar- 
tisan and  peasant. 

21.  They  do  not  demoralize  the  people  and  cause  the 
drunkenness  of  the  people,  for 

(a)  The  peasants  are  fully  as  much  addicted  to 
drunkenness  in  the  part  of  Russia  where  the 
Jews  are  not  allowed  as  they  are  within  the 
Pale. 

(b)  The  Jew  is  no  more  justly  to  be  accused  of 
selling  "vodka"  than  the  Christian. 

II.  National  grounds. 

i1.  They  are  forced  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  people 
by  "the  laws  of  the  government,  for 
(x1)  The  corporation  of  the  Kabal  was  forced  on 
them  by  the  rulers  of  Europe  for  their  financial 
benefit. 


ARGUMENTATION.  115 

(x2)  It  is  maintained  merely  for  the  purpose  of  fur- 
thering their  common  interests,  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  extortion. 
(y2)  The  rite  of  circumcision  is  not  peculiar  to  the 
Jews,    and   does  not   force   them   to   become 
"tribal." 
i2.  A  Russian  governor  has  declared  that  the  Jews  in 
the  south  of  Russia  have  become  entirely  assim- 
ilated to  the  people.1 
21.  History  shows  that  they  are  loyal  subjects,  for 
(x)  They  are  long  attached  to  the  soil  where  they 
are  placed. 

(a)  The  German  Jews  in  1815. 

(b)  The  Spanish  Jews. 

(c)  The  Jews  of  the  Vistula. 

(xl)  They  do  not  shun  military  service  any  more 
than  the  Christians  do. 

(^2)  If  they  did,  they  would  not  be  equally  blame- 
worthy, for 

(a)  They  are  not  allowed  to  hold  office  in  the 
army. 

(b)  Service  in  the  army  makes  difficult  the  ob- 
servance of  religious  ceremonials. 

(c)  The  punishment  for  evasion  of  military 
service  is  much  more  severe  for  the  Jews 
than  the  Christians. 

(d)  They  are  granted  no  civil  rights  to  compen- 
sate for  bearing  the  civil  burdens. 

(71)  It  is  true  that  Jews  and  Jewesses  were  found 
among  the  Nihilists,  but  so  also  were  Russian 
nobles  and  clergymen,  and  it  is  as  unjust  and 
absurd  to  say  that  all  the  Jews  sympathize  with 
the  Nihilists,  as  to  say  all  the  Russian  clergy 
and  noblemen  do. 
1  E.  B.  Lanin,  in  Fortnightly  Review,  October,  1890,  p.  485. 


116  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

(z)  Goldwin  Smith,  their  opponent,  himself  admits 
that  the  Jew  is  "  always  and  everywhere  a  con- 
forming citizen,  and  refuses  none  of  the  bur- 
dens of  state,  though  making  them  as  light  as 
he  could."  l 

General  Proof. 

I.  The  results  of  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  are  injurious  to 
the  country. 

i.  Commerce  is  seriously  crippled  by  it. 

(a)  It  is  already  apparent  that  the  flour  industry  has 
been  injured  by  its  withdrawal  from  the  hands  of 
the  Jews. 
(J?)  The  recent  fair  of  Nijni  Novgorod  was  a  fail- 
ure, owing  to  the  absence  of  Jewish  traders. 

2.  The  strong  and  energetic  part  of  the  Jewish  popula- 
tion are  emigrating,  leaving  the  feeble  and  helpless  to 
burden  the  government. 

3.  These  immigrants  are  spreading  influences  hostile  to 
Russia  over  the  world. 

4.  The  parts  of  the  country  whose  loyalty  is  of  prime 
importance,  in  case  of  a  German  or  Polish  invasion, 
have  been  rendered  disaffected. 

II.  The  expulsion  of  thousands  of  innocent  and  impoverished 
people  from  the  land  that  their  fathers  inhabited  centuries 
before  it  came  into  possession  of  the  Russians  is  an  offense 
against  the  moral  sense  of  the  civilized  world. 

Recapitulation  and  Conclusion. 

Since,  then,  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Russia  is  not  de- 
fensible on  economic,  social,  or  national  grounds,  and  since,  in 
its  results,  it  is  injurious  to  the  country  of  Russia,  and  since, 

1  In  North  American  Review,  August,  1891,  p.  141. 


ARGUMENTATION.  117 

furthermore,  it  offends  the  moral  sense  of  the  civilized  world,  1 
conclude  that  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Russia  is  not 
justifiable. 

When,  on  the  other  hand,  an  audience  is  unprejudiced, 
or  knows  scarcely  anything  about  either  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, a  writer  may  first  develop  his  own  case  and  then  at 
the  end  consider  the  general  objections.  Of  course,  if  he 
follows  this  method,  he  must  be  sure  that  his  answers  to 
the  general  objections  are,  either  by  themselves  or  taken 
with  his  preceding  direct  proof,  conclusive,  for  he  cannot 
afford  to  give  his  reader  just  at  the  end  of  the  argument 
the  feeling  that  important  objections  of  the  other  side 
have  not  been  satisfactorily  met.  This  arrangement, 
which  puts  the  general  refutation  at  the  end,  the  following 
brief  shows  :  — 

Brief  I. 

Was  Swift  Married  to  Stella? 

Brief  for  the  Affirmative. 
Introduction. 

A.  All  agree  that 

i .  Swift  was  for  many  years  on  intimate  terms  with 
Stella  and  addressed  her  in  words  of  warmest 
affection  in  his  Journal; 

2.  She  was  in  love  with  him ; 

3.  He  never  openly  recognized  her  as  his  wife. 

B.  But  it  has  been  frequently  contended  that  he  was  secretly 
married  to  her. 

Proof. 
A.   The  evidence  shows  that  Swift  married  Stella,  for 
I.    Personal   acquaintances  of    Swift  disclose  the  fact  of 
the  marriage. 


U8  ARGUMENTATION. 

i.    Orrery  asserted  it. 

2.  The  objection  that  Orrery  made  qualifying  state- 
ments is  not  well  founded,  for 

(a)    These  refer  not  to  the  fact  of  the  marriage, 
only  to  details. 

3.  Delany  asserted  it. 

4.  The  objections  that  Delany's  statement  (a)  merely 
confirms  his  belief  in  Orrery's  "Remarks";  (b) 
that  neither  goes  beyond  assertion ;  (c)  that  they 
give  no  evidence  to  support  their  view,  do  not 
weaken  Delany's  testimony,  for 

(a1)    This  argues  for  the  truthfulness  of  Orrery's 

testimony. 
(b\  cl)    Orrery    and    Delany  were    personal   ac- 
quaintances of  Swift  and  did  not  consider  it 
necessary  to  confirm  a  simple  statement  of 
facts  by  oaths,  or  by  the  testimony  of  others. 
II.    The  unsought  evidence  which  other  persons  have  given 
confirms  the  statements  of  Orrery  and  Delany. 

1.  Dr.  Ashe,  the  Bishop  of  Clogher,  who  performed 
the  ceremony,  confirms  the  fact  of  the  marriage : 
his  testimony  comes  directly  through  Berkeley,  to 
whom  he  communicated  it. 

2.  The  objection  that  this  evidence  is  not  well 
founded :  (a)  because  the  marriage  is  said  to  have 
taken  place  in  17 16;  (b)  Ashe  was  in  Ireland  in 
1716  and  1717,  and  died  near  the  end  of  1717; 
(c)  Berkeley  was  abroad  from  17 15  to  1721,  does 
not  hold,  for 

(a1)  It  is  not  asserted  that  the  communication 
was  made  by  word  of  mouth. 

(b l)  It  is  not  only  possible,  but  very  probable, 
that  Berkeley,  while  abroad,  corresponded 
with  Ashe;  for  he  was  away  as  tutor  of 
Ashe's  son. 


ARGUMENTATION.  119 

3.  The  marriage  is  confirmed  by  Stella,  the  only 
other  person  besides  Swift  and  Ashe  who  was 
present.     Her  testimony  comes  through 

(a)  Madden. 

(b)  Dean  Swift. 

(c)  Sheridan. 

B.    The  character  of  the  evidence  is  good,  for 

1.  The  witnesses  were  persons  of  integrity  and  stand- 
ing. 

2.  They  either  knew  the  facts  personally,  or  learned 
them  from  persons  who  did  know. 

3.  Their  testimony  was  given  at  different  times  and 
by  different  persons ;  it  differs  in  details,  but  agrees 
in  the  fact  that  there  was  a  marriage. 

4.  The  objection  that  there  are  conflicts  in  some  of 
the  statements  does  not  lessen  the  value  of  the 
evidence,  for 

(a)  No  two  witnesses  can  give  details  exactly 
alike. 

(b)  The  general  fact  that  there  was  a  marriage 
is  present  in  all  the  testimony. 

REFUTA'fTDN. 

A.    The  evidence  which  is  used  to  prove  that  Swift  was  not 
married  to  Stella  is  no^good,  for  though  it  is  said  that 

1.  Stella  always  used  her  maiden  name  in  her  signa- 
tures, yet 

(i1)  This  was  only  carrying  out  her  marriage  con- 
tract as  to  secrecy; 

2.  The  executors  of  Stella  did  not  believe  that  she 
was  married  to  Swift,  yet 

'(21)  They  had  no  opportunity  of  knowing  oneway 
or  the  other ; 

3.  Mrs.  Dingley,  Stella's  companion,  did  not  express 
the  belief  that  Stella  was  married  to  Swift,  yet 


1 20  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

(31)  Mrs.  Dingley's  answer  is  not  clear; 

(3 2)  She  was  not  apt  to  know  Stella's  greatest  secret, 
for 

(a)    She  was  the  companion,  but  not  the  con- 
fidante of  Stella. 

4.  Mrs.  Bent  and  Mrs.  Ridgway,  Swift's  housekeep- 
ers, did  not  believe  that  Swift  was  married  to 
Stella,  yet 

(41)  They  were  only  servants,  and  Swift  would  not 
have  been  apt  to  communicate  his  secrets  to  them ; 

5.  Swift  said  he  had  never  seen  the  woman  whom  he 
would  like  to  marry,  yet 

(5 !)  The  statement  was  evidently  made  to  one  with 
whom  Swift  did  not  speak  freely ; 

(52)  The  manner  of  his  speech  was  such  that  it 
would  conceal  his  real  feelings ; 

(5 3)  The  name  of  the  person  to  whom  the  reply  was 
made  is  not  given,  and  the  whole  evidence  is  in- 
definite as  to  the  point  at  issue. 

6.  Dr.  Lyon,  a  personal  acquaintance  of  Swift,  had 
access  to  all  of  Swift's  papers,  but  did  not  believe 
that  Swift  was  ever  married,  yet 

(61)  Dr.  Lyon  knew  Swift  only  in  the  years  of  the 
latter's  decline  and  imbecility. 

(62)  Swift  would  hardly  have  left  in  his  papers  evi- 
dence of  what  he  wished  concealed. 

(63)  Dr.  Lyon  bases  his  conclusion  on  a  premise 
which  is  false. 

Conclusion. 

The  testimony  of  many  witnesses,  both  acquaintances  of  Swift 
and  those  who  learned  the  fact  from  acquaintances,  as  to  the 
marriage  and  as  to  the  confirmation  of  Ashe  and  of  Stella  of 
the  fact,  and  the  agreement  of  these  witnesses  in  the  general 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  121 

fact,  in  statements  made  at  different  times  and  under  different 
conditions,  lead  me  to  say  that  Swift  was  married  to  Stella. 

In  the  frequent  cases  in  which  a  writer  is  not  able 
completely  to  break  down  his  opponent's  objections,  but 
must,  after  he  has  weakened  them  somewhat,  depend  on 
the  convincingness  of  his  direct  proof,  it  must  be  clear  why 
placing  the  general  refutation  in  the  middle  of  the  brief  is 
the  best  plan.  It  centers  the  attention  of  the  reader, 
both  in  starting  and  at  the  end,  two  critical  places,  not 
on  what  the  opponents  can  say  against  the  writer,  but  on 
what  he  can  prove  true.  It  is  this  position  which  Lord 
Chatham  gave  his  general  refutation  in  the  speech  to 
which  reference  has  already  been  made. 

Brief  J, 

Lord  Chatham's  Speech  on  the  Motion  to  remove  the 
Troops  from  Boston.1 

Introduction. 

I.    The  present  action  of  the  Ministry  suggests  unfairness. 
II.    There  has  been  unfairness  by  the  Government,  namely, 
misrepresentation,  in  that 
A.    The  representations  that  led  to  the  measures  obnoxious 
to  the  Americans  were  false,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
i .    The  ministry  said  that  the  measures  would  overawe 
the  Americans,  but  these  measures  have  united 
the  Americans  in  resistance  to  England. 
III.    Therefore,   the  troops  should  be  immediately  removed 
from  Boston. 

1  See  Political  Orations,  Cam elot  Series,  pp.  40-495  Specimens  of  Argu- 
mentation, p.  7 ;  Goodrich's  Select  British  Eloquence. 


122  ARGUMENTATION. 

IV.  In  considering  this  proposed  action,  a  hearer  should  re- 
member that  to  be  just  to  America  does  not  mean  to  ex- 
empt her  from  all  obedience  to  Great  Britain. 

Brief  Proper. 

I.    This  removal  of  the  troops  is  necessary,  for 

A.  It  will   show  the  willingness  of  the   English  to   treat 
amicably. 

B.  The  resistance  of  the  Americans  was  just,  because 

i.    The  proceedings  of  Parliament  had  been  tyran- 
nical. 

C.  The  means  of  enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures  have 
failed,  for 

i .    The  army  of  General  Gage  is  "  penned  up  —  pining 
in  inglorious  inactivity." 

2.  Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a 
safeguard,  yet  this  is  untrue,  for 

(a)  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 

(b)  It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans. 

3.  Though  it  is  said  that  Gen.  Gage  is  needlessly 
•  inactive,  yet  this  is  untrue,  for 

(a)    Any  activity  on  his  part  would  mean  "civil 
and  unnatural  war." 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  still  to  enforce  its  measures,  the  re- 
sults will  be  bad,  for 

1.  If  Parliament  is  victorious,  it  will  be  over  an  em- 
bittered people,  and 

2.  The  troops  are  not  strong  enough  to  resist  three 
million  united,  courageous  people,  and 

3.  Persecution  of  those  men  whose  fathers  fled  to 
escape  it  should  cease,  since 

(a)    The  objection  that  the    "Americans  must 
not  be  heard"  is  wrong,  because 

(1)    It  lumps  the  innocent  with  the  guilty. 


AKGUMENTA  T10N.  123 

E.  Because  the  statement  that  the  Union  in  America  cannot 
last  is  not  true,  for 

i.    The  evidence  of  the  "commercial  bodies"  is  unre- 
liable, for 

(a)  They  do  not  represent  the  class  they  per- 
sonate.   • 

(b)  They  are  government  agents. 

(e)  Even  if  the  speakers  did  represent  the  class 
they  pretend  to  represent,  their  evidence 
would  not  be  weighty,  for 

(i)    Not  the  traders  but  the  farmers  are 

the  sinew  of  a  nation,  and 
(2)   The  farmers  are  solidly  arrayed  for 
liberty. 
2.    Because  the  evidence  of  a  recognized  authority 
(Dr.  Franklin  plainly  hinted)  shows  that  for  liberty 
the  Americans  would  suffer  far  more  than  they 
have  endured,  even  war  and  rapine. 

F.  Though  it  is  said  that  the  Americans  should  be  punished 
for  illegal  violence,  yet  this  is  untrue,  for 

1.  A  chance  for  reconciliation  should  not  be  missed. 

2.  30,000  should  not  be  punished  for  the  fault  of  40 
or  50. 

3.  Punishment  means  arousing  the  unappeasable 
wrath  of  the  whole  American  people. 

4.  Even  if  the  English  should  be  victorious,  they 
could  not  control  the  great  tract  as  they  con- 
quered it. 

5.  The  resistance  should  have  been  foreseen,  for 

(a)  The  spirit  that  resists  in  America  is  that  of 
all  English  stock,  that  which  established  the 
essential  maxim  of  English  liberty,  "  No  tax- 
ation without  the  consent  of  the  taxed." 

6.  The  resistance  will  be  too  strong  to  be  overcome, 
for 


124  ARGUMENTATION. 

(a)  The  idea  of  the  Americans  is  that  of  the 
English  Whigs,  who,  in  consistency,  must 
support  the  Americans,  and 

(b)  The  Irish  have  always  maintained  the  Amer- 
ican idea. 

(c)  The  means  to  oppose  this  union  will  be 
inadequate,  for 

(i)   A   few   regiments    in    America    and 

about    18,000    men    at    home   must 

oppose  millions  in  England  and  all 

Ireland  and  America. 

G.   This  removal  of  the  troops  must  precede  any  other  step, 

for 

1.  Fear  and  resentment  must  first  of  all  be  removed 
in  the  Americans,  and 

2.  While  the  troops  remain,  resentment  will  remain, 
for 

(a)  Any  measures  secured  by  force  will  be  ddubly 
irritating  with  the  army  still  in  its  place,  and 

(b)  When,  as  is  now  the  fact,  force  cannot  be 
used,  the  mere  presence  of  the  army, 
although  it  is  itself  in  danger,  is  an  irrita- 
tion. 

H.  The  views  of  Congress  are  moderate  and  reasonable. 
I,  The  superior  should  take  the  initiative  in  concessions. 
/.  While  every  motive  of  policy  urges  withdrawal  of  the 
troops,  very  great  dangers  threaten  if  they  are  kept  in 
position,  for 

1.  If  the  old  course  is  pursued,  foreign  war  hangs 
over  the  heads  of  the  English,  for 

(a)  France  and  Spain  are  watching  for  an  advan- 
tageous chance  to  interfere,  and 

2.  The  old  methods  will  bring  ruin  at  home,  for 

(a)  The  king  will  lose  all  his  power,  and 

(b)  The  kingdom  will  be  utterly  undone. 


ARGUMENTATION.  125 

In  short,  then,  except  where  the  ground  must  be  cleared 
before  a  case  can  be  developed,  it  is  probably  better  to 
put  the  refutation,  if  it  is  conclusive,  at  the  end  of  the 
brief  ;  in  the  middle,  when  it  is  not. 

Marking  Refutation. 

It  is  sometimes  an  aid  to  clearness  to  mark  general 
refutation  with  the  word  Refutation.  This  is  true  when 
it  comes  at  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  a  brief,  or  when 
there  is  a  group  of  general  objections  to  be  considered. 
When,  however,  the  general  refutation  comes  in  as  it  does 
in  the  Chatham  speech,  —  first  an  objection  and  its  answer; 
some  direct  proof  ;  then  another  general  objection, — it  is 
not  necessary  to  mark  the  refutation  divisions  by  such  a 
head-line. 

How  to  Phrase  the  Ideas  of  the  Brief  Proper. 

In  the  brief  proper,  each  of  the  main  headings  should 
read  as  a  reason  for  the  conclusion,  and  each  of  the  subordi- 
nate headings  as  a  reason  for  the  heading  under  which  it 
stands.  This  special  kind  of  phrasing  is  one  of  the  chief 
distinctions  between  an  ordinary  outline  and  a  genuine 
brief.  The  greater  clearness  and  force  given  by  this 
phrasing  of  the  ideas  as  reasons,  study  of  the  following 
briefs  will  show  :  — 

Brief  K. 
Did  the  Council  of  Constance  maintain  the  Principle 

THAT     IT     WAS     NECESSARY     FOR     THE     CHURCH     TO     KEEP 

Faith  with  a  Heretic? 

I.    Introduction  :    (a)  Plea  for  impartiality ;   {b)  Argument, 
Outline  of 


126  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

II.    i.  Definitions  of  important  words  and  phrases  as  (a) 
Council    of    Constance,    (b)   Maintain,    (c)   Church, 
(d)  Heretic. 
2.  Restatement  of  propositions. 

III.  Antecedent  probability.     Found  in 

i.  Religious  intolerance  just  prior  to  and  during  the 
fifteenth  century. 

2.  The  council,  representative  body;  therefore,  natu- 
rally expressing  feeling  of  the  times. 

IV.  Specific  motives : 

i.  Desire  to  punish  heresy,  in  person  of  one  John  Huss, 

despite  his  royal  safe-conduct. 
2.  Necessity  (a)  of  persuading  the  emperor,  Sigismund, 

to  break  his  work  and  (b)  of  defending  his  honor. 
V.    Proofs: 

i.  Testimony   (a)   of   Sigismund,   (b)  of  Huss,  (V)  of 

members  of  the  Council. 

2.  Documentary. 

3.  In  ipso  facto,  i.e.,  the  treatment,  final  punishment  of 
Huss. 

VI.    Conclusion  :  Short  summary  of  the  argument  given. 

This  throughout  well  shows  the  unsatisfactoriness,  the 
vagueness,  of  a  mere  topical  outline,  in  which  headings  are 
not  phrased  as  reasons  for  the  conclusion.  The  faults 
of  an  introduction  like  I.  and  II.  have  already  been 
pointed  out  on  pp.  92-99.  If,  then,  we  look  only  at  the 
brief  proper,  which  begins  with  III.,  we  shall  gain  in 
clearness  if  we  re-phrase  III.  so  that  it  shall  read  :  — 

III.    There  is  antecedent  probability  that  the  council  main- 
tained this  principle,  for 

1.  Religious  intolerance  just  prior  to  and  during  the 
fifteenth  century  was  very  great  and  wide-spread. 

2.  The  Council,  as  a  large  representative  body,  must 
have  expressed  the  feeling  of  the  time. 


ARGUMENTATION.  127 

IV.  and  V.  we  may  re-phrase  as  follows  :  — 

IV.  The  Council  had  specific  reasons  for  holding  this  prin- 
ciple, for  — 

V.  The  Council  did  maintain  this  principle,  for  — 

If,  now,  we  re-phrase  the  sub-heads  of  IV.  and  V.,  as 
we  re-phrased  those  of  III.,  making  them  read  as  reasons 
for  the  truth  of  their  headings,  will  not  the  old  brief 
be  greatly  improved  ?  Running  the  eye  over  the  new 
headings,  we  see  how  the  conclusion  is  to  be  reached  : 
running  over  any  set  of  sub-heads,  we  see  how  the  partic- 
ular heading  they  support  is  to  be  proved  true.  Compari- 
son of  the  two  following  briefs  will  enforce  the  advantage 
to  be  gained  from  phrasing  the  parts  of  the  brief  proper 
as  reasons  :  — 

Brief  L. 

Will   Matthew   Arnold    live   as   a   Poet? 
Introduction. 
A.   The  great  poets  : — 
Homer, 
Milton, 
Shakespeare. 

Cf .  Arnold  :  Lectures  on  Translating  Homer.  (Ed. 
1865.)  Homer's  work —  "the  most  important  poet- 
ical monument  existing"  — p.  284.  Cf.  Essay  on 
Milton  (2d  ser.  Essays),  etc.  "He  who  wishes  to 
keep  his  standard  of  excellence  high,  cannot  have 
two  better  objects  of  regard  and  honour  "  than  Milton 
and  Shakespeare,  p.  56. 
Characteristics  of  great  poets,  — 

I.    "Thought  and  art  in  one."     (Arnold:  Study  of 
Poetry  in  2d  ser.  Essays,  etc.) 


128  ARGUMENTATION. 

(a)  Power  of  producing  effect,  and  leaving  a 
definite  impression.  (Cf.  Afternoon  Lec- 
tures on  Art  and  Literature,  v.  4.  "  Matthew 
Arnold's  poetry.") 

Style  —  Diction  "1    Arnold  —  Study   of  Poetry, 
Movement  J        p.  22 
II.    Truth     and     seriousness    in    all    great     poets. 

(Arnold  :  Study  of  Poetry?) 

B.  Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  — 

I.  1.  Has  M.  A. 's  poetry  Thought  1  Cf.  "Thyrsis," 
"Resignation,"  "Self-Dependence,"  "Rugby 
Chapel,"  "The  Forsaken  Merman,"  "Balder 
Dead." 

2.  Has  M.  A.'s  poetry  Art?  Cf.  "Thyrsis," 
"  Self-Dependence,"  "  The  Forsaken  Mer- 
man," "Sohrab  and  Rustum"  and  some  of 
the  lyrics  in  "  Empedocles  on  Etna,"  "A 
Southern  Night." 

3.  Has  M.  A.'s  poetry  Truth  ?  Cf.  "Thyrsis," 
"Self-Dependence,"  "Dover  Beach,"  "The 
Scholar  Gypsy." 

4.  Has  M.  A.'s  poetry  Seriousness?  Cf.  "Thyr- 
sis," "  Self-Dependence,"  "  Resignation," 
and  others  (elegiac  poems). 

II.  Mr.  Arnold's  best  poetry  —  judged  by  the 
characteristics  of  the  greatest  poets,  is  (a) 
"Thyrsis,"  "Self-Dependence";  (0)  "Sohrab 
and  Rustum,"  "The  Scholar  Gypsy,"  "Balder 
Dead,"  "The  Forsaken  Merman." 

C.  Conclusion. 

Matthew  Arnold  will  live  as  a  poet  because  he  has  written 
"Thyrsis,"  and  "Self-Dependence"  —  two  poems  which  come 
nearest  to  the  work  of  the  greatest  poets. 


AR  G  UMENTA  TION.  129 

Putting  aside  at  present  A,  the  very  bad  introduction, 
\et  us  look  at  the  arrangement  in  B,  the  brief  proper.  It 
is  confusing.  Evidently  the  writer  wished  to  show  that 
Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  has  thought,  art,  truth,  and 
seriousness,  but  he  simply  asks  four  questions,  and  leaves 
the  reader  to  surmise  that  in  the  poems,  the  titles  of 
which  are  cited,  an  affirmative  answer  will  be  found. 
Even  if  all  this  be  granted  him,  however,  he  still  has  not 
shown  that  if  Arnold's  poetry  has  art  and  thought,  they 
are  in  one,  and  an  important  division  is  missing.  All 
this  needs  revision.  B  II.  follows  vaguely  from  B  I.  and 
its  contribution  toward  the  conclusion  is  not  very  evident. 

Brief  M. 

Will   Matthew   Arnold    live  as   a   Poet? 

A. 

Introduction. 

I.    The   great   poets   are   Homer,    Milton,    Shakespeare. 
This  Arnold  admitted,  saying 

i.  Homer's  work  "is  the  most  important  poetical 
monument  existing."  {Lectures  on  Translating 
Homer,  Arnold,  p.  284.) 
2  and  3.  "He  who  wishes  to  keep  his  standard  of 
excellence  high  cannot  have  two  better  objects 
of  regard  and  honour  than  Milton  and  Shake- 
speare." Essay  on  Milton} 
II.    The  great  poets  have  certain  characteristics  : 

1.  Masterly  thought,  i.e.,  the  power  of  producing 
effect  and  leaving  a  definite  impression.  (Quote 
from  Aft.  Lectures,  v.  4,  as  sub-head.) 

1  A  student  should  consider  whether  the  writer's  plan  to  judge  Arnold's 
poetry  by  the  standards  Arnold  himself  set  is  that  most  likely  to  lead  to  a 
conclusion  as  to  Arnold's  own  work  which  every  one  will  grant. 


130  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

2.  A  masterly  style ;  that  is,  model  diction  and 
perfect  movement.  (Quote  as  sub-head  from 
Study  of  Poetry^) 

3.  These  two,  masterly  thought  and  masterly  style, 
must  be  united.  (Quote  from  Study  of  Poetry 
as  sub-head.) 

4.  Truth.     {Idem.) 

5.  Seriousness.     {Idem.) 

III.    The  question  then  is:  Does  Matthew  Arnold's  poetry 
show  these  five  characteristics  of  the  poetry  that  lives  ? 


B. 


Brief  Proper. 

Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  has 

I.    Thought,  for  this  is  shown  in  (a)  "  Thyrsis,"  {b} 

"Resignation,"  {e)  "Self-Dependence,"  etc. 
II.   Art,  for  this  is  shown  in  (a)  "  Thyrsis,"  {b)  "  Self- 
Dependence,"  etc.  \  \  x    ^  J  /  sy 

III.  The  Thought  and  Art  are  combined,  for  this  is 
shown  in  {a)  "  Thyrsis,"  {b)  "  Self-Dependence." 

IV.  His  poetry  has  Truth,  for  this  is  shown  in  {a) 
"  Dover  Beach,"  {b)  "The  Scholar  Gypsy,"  etc. 

V.    Seriousness,  for  this  is  shown   in  {a)  "  Resigna- 
tion," {b)  "Thyrsis,"  etc. 


Conclusion. 

Since,  from  the  preceding,  we  can  see  that  several  of 
Arnold's  poems,  "  Sohrab  and  Rustum,"  "  The  Forsaken  Mer- 
man," "The  Scholar  Gypsy,"  contain  two  of  the  four  essential 
characteristics  of  great  poets;  that  two,  "Thyrsis"  and  "  Self- 
Dependence, "  contain  all  four,  we  may  say  that  even  as  the 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  1 3 1 

great  poets  have  lived  through  these  qualities,  through  them 
also  Matthew  Arnold  will  live  as  a  poet.1 

Briefs  H.,  I.,  and  J.  show  the  rapidity  and  the  clearness 
with  which  long  and  involved  arguments  may  be  stated 
by  use  of  this  phrasing  of  ideas  as  reasons.  Till  a  student 
accustoms  himself  to  giving  his  ideas  of  the  brief  proper 
in  this  way,  he  cannot  hope  to  draw  satisfactory  briefs. 


The   Value   of   For  and    Because   as    Connectives. 

The  usefulness  of  for  and  because  as  the  conjunctions 
to  mark  this  reasoning  relationship  between  ideas  must 
be  evident  from  comparison  of  the  original  and  the 
revised  Arnold  briefs.  A  student  will  now  see  why  it  is 
better  not  to  use  these  conjunctions  in  the  introduction, 
where  only  undisputed  ideas  should  be  given,  and  why  in 
the  brief  proper  he  should  not  confound  ideas  which  are 
but  explanations  of  the  headings  under  which  they  stand 
with  ideas  which  are  reasons  for  the  truth  of  those  state- 
ments.    For  instance  :  — 

V.    She  (France)  wished  to  make  them  (the  United  States) 
a  dependency  of  France,  for 

(a)  She  wanted  to  surround  them  on  all  sides  by 
foreign  powers  of  whose  aggression  they  should 
always  stand  in  fear. 

1  A  student  should  note  that  this  conclusion  really  does  not  answer  the 
question  finally.  Evidently,  since  Arnold's  poetry  possesses  to  a  slight 
extent  the  qualities  of  great  poetry,  it  is  likely  to  have  some  life ;  but  how 
long  it  is  likely  to  live,  whether  it  will  live,  like  the  masters'  work,  as  a 
whole,  or  only  in  the  two  or  three  poems  that  possess  all  of  the  character- 
istics of  great  poetry,  remains  vague.  It  will  be  good  practice  for  the 
student  to  add  to  and  revise  the  brief  so  that  it  shall  answer  the  question. 


132  ARGUMENTATION. 

Here,  evidently,  the  clause  introduced  by  for  is  not  a 
reason  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  statement  that  France 
wished  to  make  the  United  States  dependent,  but  an  ex- 
planation of  that  statement.  A  proper  sub-head  for  V. 
would  read : 

(a)  Her  conduct  in  the  negotiations  for  peace 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  Colonies  shows 
this,  for  : — 

This  should  be  followed  by  sub-heads  showing  how 
Vergennes  intrigued,  during  these  negotiations,  to  keep 
the  power  of  France  and  even  of  Spain  dominant  in  the 
New  World.  "For"  and  "because"  should,  then,  be  kept  as 
the  connections  between  ideas  of  the  brief  proper  which  bear 
the  relationship  of  proposition  and  proof 

Wrong   Connectives  :     Hence,    Therefore. 

Students  often  connect  the  parts  of  the  brief  proper  by 
hence  and  therefore,  as  in  the  following  illustration  :  — 

Brief  N. 

Will  the  New  Rules  in  Foot-Ball  improve   the  Game  ? 

I.    The  game  will  be  improved  from  the  player's  point  of 
view,  for 
C.    The  players  will  not  have  so  much  heavy  work  to  do,  for 

(a)  It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  the  game  has  more 
of  the  kicking  element  in  it,  hence 

(b)  Continuity  of  the  rushing  is  broken,  and 

(c)  Players  have  a  breathing-spell. 

II.    The  game  will  be  improved  from  a    spectator's  stand- 
point. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  133 

i.    For  the  game  is  admittedly  more  open  by  the  new- 
rules,  hence 

(a)  He  can  see  the  players  to  better  advantage, 

(b)  He  can  follow  the  ball  better. 

When  this  phrasing  seems  necessary  a  student  may  be 
sure  that  the  order  of  the  parts  of  his  brief  is  wrong.  If 
he  tries  to  put  for  and  because  in  the  place  of  his  hence 
and  therefore,  the  trouble  will  be  clear.  C.  (a)  in  the 
above  illustration  is  not  true  because  of  (b)  and  (c).  In- 
stead, they  are  true  because  it  is  to  be  accepted  as  a 
correct  statement.  In  the  same  way,  I.  under  II.  in  this 
illustration  is  not  true  because  (a)  and  (b)  are,  but  they 
are  true  because  the  statement  in  i.  must  be  believed. 
That  is,  the  writer  has  missed  the  correct  order  for  the 
divisions  of  the  brief  proper,  —  always  proposition,  proof, 
and  has  used  instead  proof,  proposition.  A  student  will 
find  that  the  use  of  for  and  because  will  always  throw  his 
ideas  into  the  correct  relationships,  that  hence  and  there- 
fore will  reverse  the  correct  order.  Revised,  the  divisions 
just  cited  would  read  : — 

Brief  N.  I. 

I.    The  game  will  be  improved  from  the  player's  point  of 
view,  for 
C.    The  players  will  not  have  so  much  heavy  work  to  do, 
for 

(a)    They  will  have  breathing  spells,  because 

i.    The  continuity  of  rushing  of  the  old  game  is 
broken,  for 
x.    It  is  admitted  that  the  new  game  has  more 
kicking  in  it. 
II.    And  the  game  will  be  improved  from  a  spectator's  stand- 
point, for 


134  ARGUMENTATION. 

(a)    He  can  watch  the  game  to  better  advantage, 
(x)  as  to  players ;  (y)  as  to  the  ball,  because 
i.    The  new  game  is  admittedly  more  open  by 
the  new  rules. 


Phrasing    Refutation. 

In  phrasing  objections,  both  general  and  special,  a 
wording  should  be  chosen  which  at  once  makes  clear  that 
the  writer  is  at  the  moment  refuting.  The  following 
from  the  brief  of  Chatham's  speech,  pp.  1 21-124,  shows 
different  useful  phrases  :  — 

I.    The  troops  should  be  removed,  for 
C.    The  means  of  enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures  have 
failed,  for 

2.  (Special  Refutation.)  Though  it  is  said  that 
the  army  in  America  is  a  safeguard,  yet  this  is 
untrue,  for 

(a)    It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 
(p)    It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans, 
*or  2.    Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a 
safeguard,  yet 

2.1  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 

2.2  It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans. 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  to  enforce  its  measures,  the  result 
will  be  bad,  for 

3.  Persecution  of  those  men  whose  fathers  fled  to 
escape  it  should  cease,  for 

(a)  (Special  Refutation.)  The  objection  that 
the  "Americans  must  not  be  heard"  is 
wrong,  because  — 

E.  (General  Refutation.)     The  statement  that  the  Union 
in  America  cannot  last  is  not  true,  for  — 


ARGUMENTATION.  135 

Often  students  spoil  the  phrasing  of  their  briefs  by 
referring  vaguely  to  objections  instead  of  stating  them. 
This  fault  would  phrase  the  objections  just  cited  as 
follows  : 

C.  The  means  of -enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures  have 
failed,  for 

2.  The  army  in  America  is  not  a  safeguard,  for  — 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  to  enforce  its  measures,  the  result 
will  be  bad,  for 

3.  Persecution   of  those  men  whose  fathers,  etc., 
should  cease,  for 

(a)    The  Americans  should  be  heard. 

E.  The  Union  in  America  will  last. 

In  these  cases  the  writer  has  objections  in  mind,  but 
does  not  state  them  clearly.  If  a  reader  knows  that  ob- 
jections are  raised  on  these  matters,  he  is  at  once 
suspicious  of  the  writer  as  a  careless  or  somewhat  dis- 
honest workman.  He  seems  either  unwilling  or  too  lazy 
to  give  his  opponent  credit  for  what  is  his. 

Vagueness   in    Phrasing. 

All,  indeed,  that  has  been  said  as  to  vagueness  of  phras- 
ing in  the  introduction,  pp.  92  et  seq.,  of  course  applies 
equally  to  the  wording  of  the  brief  proper.  The  objec- 
tion may,  of  course,  be  raised  to  the  sub-heads  of 
Brief  M,  that  they  refer  vaguely  to  important  matters. 
It  is,  however,  practically  impossible  to  quote  the 
passages  to  be  produced  as  evidence,  for  they  would 
swell  the  brief  to  a  forensic.  A  more  convincing  and  less 
vague  aspect  can  be  given  the  sub-heads,  however,  if 
some  edition  of  Arnold  is  named  in  a  note  as  the  one 


136  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

used  by  the  writer,  and  references  to  pages  and  lines  are 
added  to  the  names  of  the  poems.  A  way  in  which  this 
may  be  done  is  shown  in  the  introductory  heads  of  Brief 
F.  There,  for  instance,  C.  II.  a — "Possible  causes  of 
the  Glacial  Epoch.  Astronomical.  Various  theories  which 
have  been  exploded" — would  if  expanded,  fill  too  much 
space.  Therefore,  the  writer  puts  (4)  against  the  words 
of  a  and  at  the  foot  of  the  page  the  reference,  "Le  Conte, 
Elements  of  Geology,  ed.  1894,  p.  552."  The  brief  on 
Matthew  Arnold's  poetry,  if  treated  in  this  way,  would 
read  like  this  :  — 

1.    Matthew  Arnold's  poetry1  has 

I.    Thought,  for  this  is  shown  in 

(a)  "Thyrsis,"  p.  299,  passim-,  especially,  ll.2  20- 

80,  115,  146. 
(p)  "Resignation,"  p.  49  :  especially  11.  10-16. 
(c)  "Self-Dependence,"  p.  27 6, passim,  etc.,  etc.3 

One  method  that  often  produces  vagueness  in  a  brief  is 
for  a  writer  to  bring  in  the  names  of  persons  or  events 
as  significant,  or  understood  by  all,  when  they  are  not 
necessarily  well  known  to  a  reader.  The  following  shows 
this  fault :  — 

1  The  Poems  of  Matthew  Arnold,  Macmillan  &'Co.,  1884. 

2  The  references  to  lines  are  merely  for  illustration. 

3  The  extent  to  which  references  should  be  given  in  a  brief  must,  of 
course,  depend  largely  on  the  subject  treated.  When  the  question  turns, 
even  in  part,  on  definitions,  evidently  the  authorities  used  must  be  cited. 
Certainly  Brief  F,  p.  103,  gains  from  the  care  with  which  references  are  given. 
Citing  references  in  briefs  trains  students  in  habits  of  accuracy,  and  makes 
the  reader  rely  more  on  the  writer.  Since,  however,  using  references  well 
depends  on  a  knowledge  of  evidence  which  a  beginner  in  brief-drawing  has 
not  acquired,  it  is  probably  best  to  train  beginners  only  to  give  absolutely 
indispensable  references,  like  those  for  definitions  and  for  passages  referred 
to,  and  to  leave  so  careful  a  use  of  references  as  that  of  the  writer  of  Brief 
F  until  the  class  has  studied  evidence. 


ARGUMENTATION.  137 

Brief  O. 

Was    Swift   Married   to    Stella  ? 

A.    The  evidence  which  is  used  to  prove  that  Swift  was  not 
married  to  Stella  is  not  good,  for  though  it  is  said  that 

3.  Mrs.  Dingley  did  not  express  the  belief  that 
Stella  was  married  to  Swift,  yet 

3.1  Mrs.  Dingley's  answer  is  not  clear,  etc. 

4.  Mrs.  Bent  and  Mrs.  Ridgway  did  not  believe 
that  Swift  was  married  to  Stella,  yet 

4.1  They  were  only  servants,  and  Swift  would  not 
have  been  likely  to  communicate  his  secrets  to 
them. 

6.  Dr.  Lyon  did  not  believe  that  Swift  was  ever 
married,  yet,  etc. 

Here  Mrs.  Dingley,  Mrs.  Bent,  Mrs.  Ridgway,  and  Dr. 
Lyon  appear  as  if  they  and  their  significance  as  witnesses 
were  known  to  the  reader.  As  was  pointed  out  in  treat- 
ing the  Introduction,  it  would  be  best  to  give  in  it  such 
information  as  would  make  these  people  and  their  signifi- 
cance clear  when  a  reader  meets  them  in  the  brief  proper. 
If  for  any  reason  the  writer  wishes  to  impress  their 
significance  on  his  reader  he  may  do  as  the  writer  of  the 
Swift-Stella  Brief,  whose  introduction  is  inadequate,  has 
done,  and  say  :  — 

A.    The  evidence  which  is  used  to  prove  that  Swift  was  not 
married  to  Stella  is  not  good,  for  though  it  is  said  that 

3.  Mrs.  Dingley,  Stella's  companion,  did  not  express 
the  belief  that  Stella  was  married  to  Swift,  yet  — 

4.  Mrs.  Bent  and  Mrs.  Ridgway,  Swift's  house- 
keepers, did  not  believe  that  Swift  was  married 
to  Stella,  yet  — 


138  ARGUMENTATION. 

6.    Dr.  Lyon,  a  personal  acquaintance  of  Swift,  had 

access  to  all  of  Swift's  papers;  yet  he  did  not 

believe  that  Swift  was  ever  married,  yet  — 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  clauses  added  give  the  necessary 

information.     It  could  best,  however,   be  given  first   in 

the  introduction. 

Transitions  from  Division  to  Division  of  the 
Brief    Proper. 

The  main  divisions  of  the  brief  proper  should  be 
phrased  carefully  so  that  the  transition  in  thought  from 
one  to  another  should  be  clear  at  sight.  Each  division 
should  develop  clearly  from  that  preceding  it,  and  should 
lead  as  clearly  to  the  division  following  it.  This  was  not 
true  of  B  II.  of  the  brief  on  Matthew  Arnold's  poetry 
printed  on  p.  128.  It  did  not  follow  clearly  from  B  I. 
In  the  following  bad  brief  the  phrasing  does  connect  A  I. 
II.  and  III.  But  how  B  IV.  follows  from  B  III.;  how  it 
leads  to  B  V.  are  matters  by  no  means  clear. 

Brief  P. 

Does   Lamb   Rightly   estimate  the   "Artificial  Comedy 
of   the   Last   Century"? 

There  are  two  main  divisions  :  (A)  Introductory,  and  (B) 
Argumentative. 

A.       I.    Congreve's    comedies    are   those   we    should  con- 
sider, and  they  are  licentious. 
II.    Lamb   maintains  that  they  are,   nevertheless,   in- 
offensive, because  unreal  to  us. 
III.    Yet  reality  is  the  chief  quality  of  good  dramatic 
work. 


ARGUMENTATION.  139 

B.       LA  conventional  world  of  bad  manners  may  be  in- 
offensive to  us; 
II.    But  Congreve's  is  not  such  a  world. 

III.  And  there  must  be  some  morals  in  the  "  conven- 
tional world  of  Comedy." 

IV.  The  characters  are  not  unlike  ourselves. 

V.    Lamb  probably  did  not  mean  all  that  he  said. 

In  this  brief,  A  III.  is  the  beginning  of  the  argument, 
and  should  be  under  B ;  the  transition  from  it  to  B  I.  is 
not  clear.  B  II.  needs  details  for  sub-heads  ;  B  III.  is 
vague  and  needs  development.  B  IV.  comes  in  loosely, 
not  developing  from  what  precedes,  not  leading  to  what 
follows  ;  it  seems  really  to  be  a  part  of  B  II.  This 
vagueness  in  connection  between  the  ideas  in  a  brief 
means  that  a  writer  must  try  to  phrase  his  work  better. 
To  do  this  he  must  study  the  relations  of  the  parts  of 
his  argument  to  see  just  how  one  grows  out  of  the  other. 
This  fact  shows  that  unless  a  writer  has  been  merely 
careless  in  his  phrasing,  he  must,  if  he  is  to  re-phrase 
his  work  successfully,  analyze  his  question  more  care- 
fully. Bad  correlation  is  generally  a  sign  of  inadequate 
or  incorrect  analysis.  When  a  student  finds  that  the 
correlating  of  his  brief  is  criticised  he  should  at  once 
analyze  his  subject  anew.  When  he  has  done  this,  he 
will  try  to  make  his  reader,  by  certain  symbols,  under- 
stand the  values  and  the  relations  he  gives  the  parts  of 
his  work.  In  a  word,  there  cannot  be  neat  transition 
between  the  parts  of  a  brief  unless  there  is  careful  and 
correct  correlation  of  the  parts. 


140 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 


Cf.  Sohrab 
and  Rostum, 
Haider  Dead 
The  Scholar 
Gipsy, 
Rugby 
Chapel. 


v.  Chief  Jus- 
tice Coleridge 
in  New  Re- 
view, Septem- 
ber, 1889. 


The    Importance    of    Careful    Correlating    in    the 
Brief    Proper. 

We  have  seen  that  in  arranging  the  introductory 
material  of  a  brief,  careful  correlation  helped  decidedly  to 
clearness.  It  helps  even  more  in  the  brief  proper.  Here 
are  two  briefs  which  show  how  confusing  is  bad  cor- 
relation : — 

Brief  Q. 

Will  Matthew  Arnold  live  as  a  Poet? 

Matthew  Arnold  will  live  as  a  poet. 

1.  (a)  Style  the  chief  test  of  worth 
in  poetry  as  in  prose. 
(J?)  Matthew  Arnold's  style  per- 
manently good  because  (1) 
his  natural  taste  was  sure 
and  delicate  in  the  whole 
realm  of  letters.  (2)  He 
was  perhaps  one  of  the  most 
cultivated  writers  among  his 
contemporaries. 
The    only    poet    of    significance   Stedman, 

.  Victorian 

who  truly  expressed  the  wavering  Poets. 
and  skeptical  mood  of  his  day. 
In  later  times  men  will  turn  to 
him  to  see  the  intellectual  spirit 
of  our  day  balancing  between 
faith  and  uncertainty. 

This  brief  shows  the  confusion  that  good  material  may 
be  thrown  into  by  a  lack  of  carefully  selected  headings 
and  sub-heads  and  of  exact  correlation.  The  brief  should 
be  given  introductory  headings  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 


Cf.    Emped 

ocles  on 

;Etna, 

In  totumque 

paratus,  The 

Youth  of 

Nature 


2. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  141 

question.  The  compiler's  assertion  as  to  style  needs 
supporting  sub-heads  to  turn  it  from  a  mere  assertion  to 
a  carefully  considered  opinion.  The  compiler  calmly 
assumes  for  Arnold  a  mastery  of  style  which  needs  some 
consideration,  and  turns  to  the  question  of  the  permanence 
of  Arnold's  reputation  as  a  stylist,  (i)  and  (2),  which 
are  parts  of  the  sentence  (&),  should  be  given  lines  by 
themselves  ;  the  references  scattered  along  the  edges  of 
the  sheet  should  be  brought  in  under  the  headings  or 
sub-heads  which  they  are  to  support.  (1)  seems  more 
important  than  (2),  and  should  follow  it.  2.  adds  an  idea, 
apart  from  style,  and  is  a  crowded  sentence  in  which 
headings  and  sub-heads  are  thrown  confusingly  together. 
Restate  it  in  this  way,  perhaps  : — 

2.    Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  will  live,  not  only  because  its 

style   is  masterly,   but   also   because    its   thought   must 

strongly  interest  future  generations  : 

A.  Since  it  best  expresses  the  wavering  between  faith 
and  uncertainty  of  the  present  day ; 

B.  Since  it  best,  in  poetry,  phrases  the  skepticism  of 
to-day. 

Certainly  the  compiler  should  define  what  he  means  by 
style  in  poetry,  and  should  join  1.  and  2.  in  thought  as 
closely  as  he  can.  As  they  stand,  the  transition  from 
one  to  the  other  is  very  abrupt.  If  all  this  material  were 
rearranged  and  carefully  correlated,  order  would  come 
out  of  the  present  chaos. 

If  a  reader  will  look  at  the  brief  on  Matthew  Arnold's 
poetry  given  on  p.  127,  he  will  see  that  an  entirely  new 
correlating  of  its  parts  was  necessary  to  bring  it  into  the 
form  it  bears  on  p.  129.  A  I.  and  II.  of  the  old  brief  are, 
as  introductory  matter,  marked  off  on  p.   129  from  the 


142  ARGUMENTATION. 

brief  proper.  Then  the  numbering  of  the  parts  of  the 
introduction  is  changed  because  the  old  correlation  of  I. 
and  II.  had  no  meaning.  A  reader  of  the  old  brief  was 
left  to  discover  that  each  of  the  first  set  of  quotations  in 
the  introduction  showed  why  one  of  the  poets  named  in 
the  opening  lines  of  the  brief  was  chosen.  The  new 
brief,  by  careful  correlation  and  proper  phrasing,  makes 
this  self-evident.  In  I.  and  II.  (of  the  properly  intro- 
ductory matter)  a  reader  is  again  left  to  inference,  this 
time  that  the  references,  if  examined,  will  provide  sup- 
port for  the  statements  that  in  great  poets  thought  and 
art  are  in  one  ;  that  their  works,  producing  an  effect  and 
leaving  a  definite  impression,  are  models  in  style  ;  that 
truth  and  seriousness  are  in  all  of  them.  All  this,  then, 
needed  careful  remassing  and  correlating.  The  arrange- 
ment in  B,  also,  is  confusing.  Evidently  the  writer 
wished  to  show  that  Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  has 
thought,  art,  truth,  and  seriousness,  but  he  simply  asks 
four  questions,  and  leaves  the  reader  to  surmise  that  in 
the  poems  the  titles  of  which  are  cited,  an  affirmative 
answer  will  be  found.  Even  if  all  this  be  granted  him, 
however,  he  still  has  not  shown  that  if  Arnold's  poetry 
has  art  and  thought,  they  are  in  one.  Therefore,  an  im- 
portant division  is  missing.  All  this  needs  revision.  B 
II.  follows  vaguely  from  B  I.  and  its  contribution  toward 
the  conclusion  is  not  very  evident.  That  is,  again  we 
need  to  remass  the  material  and  to  correlate  carefully. 

Crowded   Headings. 

As  may  be  seen  from  one  of  the  corrections  suggested 
for  the  very  confused  brief  on  Matthew  Arnold  given  on 
p.  140,  one  reason,  sometimes,  why  briefs  do  not  develop 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  143 

clearly,  even  when  correlated,  is  that  writers  overcrowd 
the  headings.  That  is,  they  put  into  the  headings  so 
many  different  ideas  that  the  relations  of  these  ideas, 
main  and  subordinate,  are  lost  to  sight.  In  the  brief  just 
referred  to,  the  heading  2.  reads:  — 

2.  The  only  poet  of  significance  who  truly  ex- 
pressed the  wavering  and  skeptical  mood  of  his 
day.  In  later  times  men  will  turn  to  him  to  see 
the  intellectual  spirit  of  our  day  balancing 
between  faith  and  uncertainty. 

Here  main  ideas  and  subordinafe  are  thrown  together 
confusingly.  We  can  make  this  clear  by  re-stating  it 
with  careful  correlation. 

I.  Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  will  live,  not  only  because 
(what  has  been  shown)  its  style  is  masterly,  but  also 
because  its  thought  must  strongly  interest  future  genera- 
tions, 

A.  Since  it  best  expresses  the  wavering  between  faith 
and  uncertainty  of  the  present  day ; 

B.  Since  it  best,  in  poetry,  phrases  the  skepticism  of 
to-day. 

This  heading  is  also  crowded  :  — 

(c)  "The  Utopia  of  gallantry,"  —  (cf.  Vainlove's 
speech  in  The  Old  Bachelor,  I,  1,  p.  12, 
Vizetelly's  edition) — as  Lamb  fitly  characterizes 
the  sphere  of  the  Artificial  Comedy,  may  be 
paralleled  very  exactly  in  the  court  of  Charles 
II.,  as  described  in  Evelyn's  Diary,  in  Pepys's 
Diary,  in  Bishop  Burnet's  History  of  His  Own 
Times,  in  Hamilton's  Memoirs  of  Count  Gram- 
mon^  —  an  account  of  nothing  of  state,  the 
memoirs  of  amours  alone. 


144  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 


If  stated  in  this  way,  is  not  the  material  easier  to  grasp  ? 

(c)    "The  Utopia  of  gallantry"  —  as  Lamb  charac- 
terizes the  sphere  of  the  Artificial  Comedy  —  is 
paralleled  in  the  court  of  Charles  II.,  for 
(i.)    The  histories  of  the  time  verify  it. 

i.    See  Burnet's  History  of  His  Own  Times. 
(Give  exact  references.) 
(2.)    The  diaries  verify  it. 

1.    See    Pepys    and    Evelyn.     (References 
exactly.) 
(3.)    The  memoirs  of  the  Count  de  Grammont 
corroborate  it.     (References  exactly.) 

The  heading  II.  of  Brief  A  —  "  Illegal  measures  some- 
times justifiable.  Revolution.  Civil  War,  resistance  to 
Fugitive  Slave  Act" — develops,  when  properly  handled, 
into  this  :  — 

I.    Measures  not  strictly  legal  may  be  warrantable,  defens- 
ible, for 

1.  Social  reasons,  for 

(a)  When  social  corruption  in  San  Francisco  in  its 
early  days  was  not  successfully  controlled  by 
the  regularly  appointed  officers,  the  Vigilante 
Committee  removed  the  troubles  by  methods 
not  strictly  legal. 

2.  Political  reasons,  for 

(a)  When  Great  Britain  oppressed  the  American 
Colonies,  they  gained  by  revolt  and  force  what 
they  could  not  gain  by  appeal  and  arbitration. 

3.  Moral  reasons,  for 

(a)  Posterity  has  justified  the  refusal  of  men,  at  a 
time  of  religious  persecution,  to  conform  to 
laws  contrary  to  their  beliefs. 

(b)  Later  generations  approve  the  conduct  of  those 


ARGUMENTATION.  145 

who  in  the  Underground  Railway  acted  contrary 
to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

Crowded  headings  should,  then,  be  broken  up  and  the 
parts  carefully  correlated.  Each  heading,  each  sab-head, 
of  the  brief  proper,  should  phrase  but  one  idea. 

Three  Common  Errors  in  Correlation. 

1 .  Badly  correlated  refutation.  —  Other  faults  in  corre- 
lation suggest  themselves  here.  Refutation  is  often  con- 
fusingly correlated  ;  headings  are  given  sub-heads  which 
do  not  really  support  them  ;  divisions  are  marked  twice. 
For  instance,  both  of  the  following  correlations  of  refuta- 
tion are  incorrect  :  — 

1.  Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safe- 
guard, yet 

(a)    It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 
(J?)    It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans, 
and 

1.    Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safe- 
guard, yet  this  is  untrue,  for 
i.1    It  is  powerless  and  contemptible. 

When  an  objection  is  answered  by  a  clause  introduced 
by  yet  alone,  this  clause  is  placed,  so  to  speak,  over 
against  the  objection  and  should  be  given  equal  rank. 
That  is,  the  first  illustration  should  read  :  — 

1.  Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safe- 
guard, yet 

i.1    It  is  powerless  and  held  in  contempt,  and, 

i.2    It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans. 

When  an  objection  is,  however,  declared  untrue  be- 
cause something  else  is  true,  this  phrasing  calls  for  sub- 
ordination to  the  objection  of  the  clauses  introduced  by 


146  ARGUMENTATION. 

for  or  because.  The  second  illustration  should  read, 
then  :  — 

i.    Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safe- 
guard, this  is  untrue,  for 
(a)    It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 
(J?)    It  is  an  irritation  to  the  Americans. 

That  is,  the  writer  of  the  first  two  illustrations  just  re- 
versed the  correct  correlation.  The  first  correlation  illus- 
trates a  very  common  error. 

2.  Sub-heads  which  do  not  support  their  heading. — The 
following  brief  shows  sub-heads  which  do  not  really  sup- 
port the  heading  under  which  they  stand,  though  they 
are  connected  with  it  in  thought  :  — 

A.    Mr.  Pullman  was  right  in  refusing  to  submit  to  arbitra- 
tion the  demands  of  his  employees,  because 
i.    A  capitalist  has  a  right  to  manage  his  business  as 
he  will,  so  long  as  he  does  not  injure  any  one  or 
violate  any  law. 
'  (a)    Mr.  Pullman's  business  is  a  private  matter ;    no 
disinterested  person  has  any  right  to  dictate  to 
him. 

(b)  No  man  is  obliged  to  work  for  Mr.  Pullman; 
if  he  is  dissatisfied  he  may  seek  for  work  else- 
where. 

(c)  The  private  business  of  any  one  is  not  a  matter 
for  arbitration. 

Here  (a),  (b),  (c)  are  not  at  all  on  the  same  footing, 
and  (a)  and  (b)  certainly  do  not  support  i .  directly.  The 
writer  has  two  ideas  in  mind  :  that  the  capitalist  has 
certain  rights  :  and  that  Mr.  Pullman,  as  a  capitalist, 
should  be  allowed  to  take  advantage  of  these  rights.  He 
starts    to    prove    in    I.   the   rights  of  the  capitalist,  and 


ARGUMENTATION.  147 

runs  off,  in  (a)  and  (b),  on  his  second  idea,  that  Mr.  Pull- 
man's business  falls  under  the  conditions  of  which  he  is 
thinking.  In  (c)  he  recurs  to  his  first  line  of  thought 
and  makes  a  more  sweeping  statement  in  regard  to  it. 
When  the  writer  tries  to  correlate  this  correctly,  and 
therefore  analyzes  his  material  more  thoroughly,  he  will 
find  such  serious  objections  arising  to  some  of  his  state- 
ments in  (a),  (b),  and  (c),  under  i .,  that  he  will  probably 
give  over  any  attempt  to  develop  his  argument  on  just 
these  lines. 

3 .  Double  marking.  —  All  that  was  said  of  over-cor- 
relation, of  double  marking  in  introductions,  p.  102,  of 
course  applies  equally  well  to  the  brief  proper.  It  is  a 
very  common  error  that  produces  at  times  considerable 
confusion. 

The  Second  Great  Requisite  of  the  Brief  Proper. 

If  pJirasing  the  headings  and  the  sub-headings  of  briefs 
as  reasons  be  the  first  great  requisite  of  the  good  brief 
proper,  correct  correlation  of  the  parts  is  the  second.  It  is 
not  easy  to  master,  but  it  is  absolutely  indispensable  in 
good  briefs. 

The  Usefulness  of  Climax  in  Arranging  Briefs. 

In  the  brief  drawn  for  simple  investigation  of  a  ques- 
tion, the  best  order  is  to  take  up  the  necessary  main 
ideas  so  that  a  reader  shall  pass  from  the  weakest  to  the 
strongest,  and  to  treat  the  subordinate  headings  under 
main  headings  in  the  same  way.  The  advantage  of  this 
order  is,  of  course,  that  a  writer's  convincingness  in- 
creases as  he  moves  on.  For  instance,  in  the  following 
brief,  IV.,  as  showing  merely  that  two  different  views  on 


148  ARGUMENTATION. 

the  eighteenth  century  have  been  held,  suggests  an  ante- 
cedent probability  that  Carlyle's  estimate  may  not  be 
correct.  Therefore,  it  is  not  so  strong  as  proof  that  his 
opinion  is  incorrect,  and  it  should  follow  I.,  not  III. 

Brief  R. 

Carlyle's  Estimate  of  the  Eighteenth  Century  is 
Incorrect. 

I.    Introduction.     Carlyle's  estimate. 

II.  The  eighteenth  century  was  not  a  "decrepit,  death- 
sick  era,"  because  beneath  the  apparent  lassitude  of 
the  age,  forces  were  at  work,  mental,  moral,  and 
social,  which  contained  the  seeds  of  the  best  fruit  that 
the  nineteenth  century  has  produced. 

III.  The  eighteenth  century  was  not  an  era  of  hypocrisy 
and  cant : 

(a)  Because  solid,  searching  men,  like  Swift  and 
Johnson,  were  the  acknowledged  leaders  of  the 
literary  world. 

(b)  Because  it  was  the  age  of  great  deistic  con- 
troversy. 

(c)  Because  it  was  the  age  of  earnest  search  for  truth. 

{d)  Because  it  was  an  age  of  reform,  of  the  broaden- 
ing of  human  sympathies,  despite  its  "windy 
sentimentalism." 

IV.  Contrasts  between  the  estimates  of  Carlyle  and  Lecky. 
V.    Summary  and  conclusion. 

The  proper  rearrangement  of  this  brief  for  climax  has 
been  given  on  p.  94. 

This  climactic  arrangement  of  material  can  in  prac- 
tically all  cases  be  carried  out  for  the  subdivisions,  but 
it  is  not  advisable  in  some  cases  for  the  main  headings. 


ARGUMENTA  T10N.  149 

If  a  man  is  writing  in  favor  of  some  entirely  new  or 
unpopular  idea,  he  may  not  win  a  hearing  unless  he  can 
at  the  beginning  of  his  paper  startle  a  reader  by  the 
cogency  of  his  ideas.  In  such  a  case  the  writer  will  put 
one  of  his  strongest,  if  not  his  strongest  idea,  first.  In- 
deed, he  will  probably  begin  by  using  his  best  logic  to 
destroy  some  one  of  the  fundamental  ideas  on  which  the 
old  theory  rests.  That  is,  he  will  begin  by  refuting. 
Whenever  a  writer  refutes,  his  aim  is  to  weaken  sympathy 
with  his  opponent  promptly,  to  destroy  the  force  of  his 
adversary's  case  as  soon  as  possible.  If  he  begins  by  re- 
futing his  opponent's  weakest  argument  and  works  slowly 
to  the  strongest,  certainly  he  will  not  produce  half  the 
effect  that  he  will  if  he  at  the  outset  attacks  the  strongest 
argument  of  his  opponent  which  he  feels  sure  that  he 
can  overcome.  In  the  first  case,  he  probably  considers 
needlessly  arguments  so  dependent  on  the  stronger  objec- 
tions that  they  must  fall  if  the  latter  fall  :  therefore  he 
wastes  time.  In  the  second  case,  he  can  show  that  some 
of  the  minor  arguments  have  gone  down  with  the  strong 
argument  refuted.  He  can,  too,  with  greater  probability 
that  his  views  will  be,  after  his  success,  accepted,  assert 
that  the  arguments  he  cannot  wholly  answer  are  at  least 
seriously  weakened.  Moreover,  every  argument  he  does 
answer  after  the  strong  argument  has  been  overcome 
counts.  In  the  first  case,  when  he  seemed  to  be  keeping 
away  from  the  strong  arguments,  they  went  for  less. 
Climax,  then,  is  as  far  as  is  possible  to  be  sought  for  in 
arranging  the  headings  and  sub-headings  of  a  brief,  but 
in  general  refutation  and  under  special  circumstances  it 
is  not  to  be  used  unless  careful  consideration  shows  that 
it  is  wise. 


150  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 


Summary. 


In  the  brief  proper,  then,  a  student  should  state  clearly 
and  very  succinctly  the  ideas  by  which  he  hopes  to  prove 
the  correctness  of  his  opinion.  Separating  direct  proof 
from  general  refutation,  carefully  distinguishing  general 
and  special  refutation,  he  should  phrase  his  ideas  as 
reasons  and  connect  them  by  for  and  because.  Vague- 
ness in  phrasing  and  in  transitions  from  idea  to  idea  he 
must  carefully  avoid.  He  must  so  correlate  his  ideas 
that  their  correct  relationships  one  to  another  will  be 
clear  at  a  glance.  He  should  remember  that  one  letter 
or  number  is  enough  for  one  idea.  He  should  break  up 
and  correlate  crowded  headings.  As  far  as  possible  he 
should  aim  at  climax  in  arranging  his  material. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

The  division  of  a  brief  called  the  Conclusion  sums  up 
in  as  few  words  as  possible  the  argument  of  the  brief 
proper,  showing  clearly  how  it  leads  to  a  decision  for  the 
affirmative  or  the  negative  on  the  topic  under  discussion. 

When  a  Conclusion  may  be  omitted. 

The  final  decision  —  it  is  often  itself  called  the  conclu- 
sion, though  it  is  but  a  part  of  it  technically — should 
always,  unless  it  is  given  at  the  beginning  of  the  brief 
proper  as  a  proposition,  be  stated  at  the  end  of  the  dis- 
cussion. For  instance,  in  the  following  brief  the  conclu- 
sion is  evidently  needed,  and  is  properly  given  :  — 


ARGUMENTATION.  151 


>r-. 


Brief  S. 

Is  the  Expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Russia  Justifiable? 

Brief  Proper. 

Refutation. 

A.  It  is  claimed  that  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  is  defen- 
sible on 

I.    Economic  and  social  grounds,  for 
(Sub-heads). 
II.    National  grounds,  because 
(Sub-heads). 

B.  The  expulsion  of  the  Jews  is  not  defensible  on 

1.  Economic  and  social  grounds,  for 

(Sub-heads). 
II.    National  grounds,  for 
(Sub-heads). 

General  Proof. 

I.    The  results  of  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  are  injurious 
to  the  country,  for 

i.    Commerce  is  seriously  crippled  by  it,  for 
(Sub-heads). 

2.  The    strong   and    energetic  part  of  the  Jewish 
population  is  emigrating,  etc.,  etc. 

Recapitulation  and  Conclusion. 

Since,  then,  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Russia  is  not 
defensible  on  economic,  social,  or  national  grounds ;  and  since 
in  its  results  it  is  injurious  to  the  country  of  Russia ;  and 
since,  furthermore,  it  offends  the  moral  sense  of  the  civilized 
world,  I  conclude  that  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Russia 
is  unjustifiable. 

In  the  next  illustration,  the  brief  proper  of  Lord 
Chatham's  speech  on  removing  the  troops  from  Boston, 


152  ARGUMENTATION. 

it  is  evident  that  I.  is  the  final  decision  and  that  there  is 
no  need  to  re-state  it  at  the  end  of  the  brief. 

Brief  T. 
Brief  Proper. 

I.    The  removal  of  the  troops  is  necessary,  for 

A.  It  will  show  the  willingness  of  the  English  to 
treat  amicably. 

B.  The  resistance  of  the  Americans  was  just,  be- 
cause 

(Sub-heads). 

C.  The  means  of  enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures 
have  failed,  for 

(Sub-heads). 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  still  to  enforce  its  measures, 
the  result  will  be  bad,  for 

(Sub-heads). 

E.  The  statement  that  the  Union  in  America  can- 
not last  is  not  true,  for 

(Sub-heads). 

F.  Though  it  is  said  that  the  Americans  should  be 
punished  for  illegal  violence,  this  is  untrue,  for 

(Sub-heads). 

G.  This  removal  of  the  troops  must  precede  any 
other  step,  for 

(Sub-heads)  etc.,  etc. 

A  student  should  never,  except  in  the  case  just  ex- 
plained, fail  to  state  clearly  the  conclusion  in  a  brief. 
He  should  neither  omit  it  nor  merely  refer  to  it.  The 
latter  is  what  the  writer  of  the  brief  on  the  Council  of 
Constance  topic,  given  on  p.  126,  did.     He  writes  :  — 

VI.    Conclusion  :   Short  summary  of  the  argument  given. 
The  uselessness  of  this  is  self-evident. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  153 

Qualifying  Conclusions. 

A  writer,  in  stating  his  conclusion,  should  never 
qualify,  reaching  a  weaker  decision  than  that  which  he 
evidently  started  out  to  prove  true.  This  fault  is  shown  in 
two  of  the  briefs  already  cited.  That  on  the  topic  about 
the  Artificial  Comedy ',  p.  138,  has  as  its  conclusion  :  — 

VI.  Lamb  did  not  mean  what  he  said. 
The  student  was  asked  to  show  that  Lamb's  estimate 
was  correct  or  incorrect,  and  he  arranged  headings  as  if 
he  intended  to  prove  Lamb  wrong.  Then,  suddenly  he 
shifted  his  ground  to  this  conclusion.  In  the  brief  on 
Matthew  Arnold's  poetry,  on  p.  127,  the  writer  was  asked 
"Will  Matthew  Arnold  live  as  a  poet?"  and  he  developed 
a  brief  that  was,  apparently,  to  show  that  Arnold  will 
thus  live.  When  he  reached  his  conclusion,  however,  he 
said  :  — 

Conclusion. 

Matthew  Arnold  will  live  as  a  poet,  because  he  has  written 
"Thyrsis"  and  "Self-Dependence,"  two  poems  which  come 
nearest  to  the  work  of  the  great  poets. 

The  last  clause  qualifies  the  conclusion  and  raises  the 
question,  very  difficult  to  decide  :  Do  the  two  poems  come 
near  enough  to  the  great  work  to  last  ?  When  a  student 
is  tempted  to  qualify  a  conclusion  in  this  way,  he  may  be 
sure  of  one  of  two  things  :  either  he  has  not  supported 
his  case  as  strongly  as  he  could,  and  revision  will  make 
qualification  unnecessary  ;  or  he  has  tried  to  prove 
more  than  he  can,  i.e.,  his  analysis  of  the  work  to  be  done 
is  faulty  and  he  must  start  anew,  carefully  pointing  out 
to  a  reader  in  his  introduction  why  he  can  treat  only  the 


154  ARGUMENTATION. 

modified  form  of  the  original  question.  A  writer  should 
never,  of  course,  under  any  circumstances,  if  he  feels  that 
the  work  done  calls  for  qualification,  state  a  conclusion 
unqualifiedly.  He  should  face  the  unsatisfactoriness  of 
his  work  and  search — along  the  two  lines  suggested 
above — for  the  place  where  his  fault  lies. 

Summary. 

The  conclusion,  then,  of  a  brief  should  always  be  clearly 
stated,  unless  the  most  important  part  of  it,  the  decision  to 
be  reached,  is  stated  at  the  beginning  of  the  brief  proper y 
as  a  proposition.     Never  state  qualified  conclusions. 

GOOD    BRIEFS. 

All  these  rules  for  the  Introduction,  the  Brief  Proper, 
and  the  Conclusion,  must  be  carefully  applied  and 
mastered,  if  a  student  wishes  to  draw  good  briefs  and 
to  write  clear  and  convincing  arguments.  Once  mas- 
tered, they  simplify  greatly  two  divisions  in  argumenta- 
tion, analysis  and  structure,  and  they  are  a  decided  aid  to 
an  effective  handling  of  evidence.  What  a  successful 
application  of  these  rules  will  produce  is  shown  by  Brief 
H,  p.  in,  Brief y,  p.   121,  and  the  two  which  follow:  — 

Brief  U. 

Does  the  Gorge  of  the  Niagara  River  afford  a  Suf- 
ficient Index  of  the  Duration  of  Post-glacial 
Time? 

Introduction. 

I.    It  is  admitted  by  all  geologists  that 

(a)    The  gorge  of  the  Niagara  River,  as  we  know  it, 
has  been  cut  since  the  close  of  the  ice  age. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  155 

(b)  It  is  increasing  in  length  at  the  cataract  end. 

(c)  The  cataract  is  the  cause  of  the  increase. 

II.  Certain  geologists,  —  among  them  Wright,  Lyell,  and 
Spencer, — in  attempting  to  estimate  the  duration  of 
post-glacial  time,  think  it  necessary 

(a)  Merely  to  determine  the  rate  at  which  the  length 
of  the  gorge  is  now  increasing,  and 

(b)  Then  to  compute  from  the  known  length  of  the 
gorge  the  time  it  has  taken  to  form  the  whole. 

III.  Other  geologists  —  among  them  Gilbert  and  Shaler  — 
think  that  the  methods  and  results  of  Wright  and  the 
others  are  inaccurate,  in  that 

(a)  The  rate  of  erosion  has  varied  for  several  causes. 

(b)  There  was  a  period  of  unknown  duration  between 
the  close  of  the  ice  age  and  the  birth  of  the  river. 

IV.  The  question  is,  then  :  Are  the  ideas,  III.  (a)  and  (b), 
upon  which  Gilbert  and  Shaler  rest  their  theory, 
incorrect  ? 

Brief  for  the  Negative. 

Proposition  :   The  gorge  of  the   Niagara  River  does  not 
afford  a  sufficient  index  of  the  duration  of  post-glacial  time. 

A.    It  does  not  afford  a  sufficient  index  of  the  duration  of  its 
own  lifetime. 
I.    The  rate  of  erosion  of  the  gorge  has  not  been  con- 
stant, for 
i.    It  depends  on  three  controlling  factors  : 

(a)  The  hardness  and  relative  thickness  of  the 
materials  eroded. 

(b)  The  volume  of  the  river. 

(c)  The  height  of  the  cataract. 

2.    And  these  factors  have  not  been  constant,  for 

(a)    The  hardness  and  relative  thickness  of  the 
materials  eroded  has  varied. 


156  ARGUMENTA  TJON. 


i.   A  part  of   the  present  gorge   lying 
above  the  whirlpool  had  already  been 
cut  by  a  pre-glacial  stream  and  sub- 
sequently filled  with  loose,  incoherent, 
glacial  drift. 
a.   The  drift-filled  gaps  in  the  cliffs 
at  the  whirlpool  and  at  St.  David's 
are  evidences  of  the  existence 
of  such  pre-glacial   stream  and 
gorge. 

2.  We  infer  by  analogy  that  the  lime- 
stone rock  is  more  cracked,  and  there- 
fore softer  and  more  easily  eroded 
in  some  parts  of  the  gorge  than  in 
others. 

3.  The  thickness  of  the  limestone  is 
shown  by  measurements  to  vary  in 
different  parts  of  the  gorge. 

(&)    The  volume  of  the  river  has  not  been  con- 
stant, since 

1.  For  a  long  time  the  waters  of  the 
upper  lakes  followed  a  channel  which 
caused  them  not  to  empty  into  Lake 
Erie,  and  hence  into  the  Niagara. 
Evidences  of  this  are  : 

a.    Ancient  watercourses. 

(3.    Ancient    shore    lines  associated 

with  them, 
y.   Ancient  beaches,  spits,  bars  and 

other  relics  of  lake  wave-action. 

2.  For  a  time  the  Niagara  received  the 
waters  from  melting  glaciers,  and 
and  then  its  volume  may  have  been 
greater  than  now. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  1 5  7 

(c)    The  height  of  the  cataract  has  not  been 
constant,  for 
1.   The  level  of  Lake  Ontario  has  not 
been  constant,  for 
a.    Ancient  shore  lines  show  that  it 
was  once  nearly  as  high  as  the 
top  of  the  present  gorge;  then 
was  lowered  some  300  feet ;  and 
then  it  gradually  rose  to  its  pres- 
ent level. 

II.    We  have  not  sufficient  data  for  measuring  the  effect 
of  the   inconstancy  of  the   hardness  and  relative 
thickness  of  the  materials  eroded,  for 
(a)    We  cannot  estimate 

1.  How  far  above  the  Whirlpool  the 
ancient  gorge  was  cut. 

2.  How  deep  into  the  plateau  it  was  cut. 

3.  How  much  the  hardness  of  the  lime- 
stone has  varied. 

4.  The  effect  of  a  change  in  its  thick- 
ness on  the  rapidity  of  erosion. 

III.    We  have  not  sufficient  data  for  measuring  the  effect 
of  the  inconstancy  of  the  volume  of  the  river,  for 
(a)   We  cannot  estimate, 

1 .  The  difference  in  volume  of  the  river 
due  to  the  waters  received  from  melt- 
ing glaciers. 

2.  The  difference  in  volume  of  the  river 
due  to  the  addition  or  subtraction  cf 
the  drainage  of  the  upper  lakes. 

a.  It  has  been  conclusively  proved 
that  the  hydrographic  basins  of 
those  lakes  were  not  the  same 
then  as  at  present, 


158  ARGUMENTATION. 

3.   The  length  of  the  cataract. 

a.    We   have   no   means    of   telling 
how  long  Lake  Ontario  remained 
at  the  different  levels  indicated 
by  the  series  of  shore  lines. 
B.    Even  if  we  grant  that  the  Niagara  affords  a  sufficient 
index  of  the  length  of  its  own  life,  it  does  not  afford  a 
sufficient  index  of  the  duration  of  the  post-glacial  epoch, 
for 
I.    The  two  epochs  are  not  coincident,  for 

1.  The  river  did  not  begin  to  cut  its  gorge  immedi- 
ately upon  the  recession  of  the  ice  from  the 
"great  divide." 

(a)  For  a  long  time  after  the  recession  of  the 
ice  from  the  divide,  the  site  of  the  Niagara 
River  was  buried  under  the  ice  or  under  a 
lake,  for 

1.  After  the  ice  had  melted  North  of 
the  divide,  but  before  it  had  melted 
enough  to  open  the  Rome  pass,  the 
glacial  waters  were  confined  between 
the  ice  front  and  the  divide  in  the 
form  of  lakes,  and 

2.  Ancient  watercourses  and  shore  lines 
show  that  one  of  these  lakes  occupied 
the  Western  part  of  the  basin  of  Lake 
Erie  while  the  ice  still  covered  the 
site  of  the  Niagara  River,  and  that 
this  lake  assumed  at  least  four  differ- 
ent levels  before  it  overflowed  at  a 
level  sufficiently  low  to  cause  the  sep- 
aration of  Lakes  Erie  and  Ontario. 

II.  Our  data  for  determining  the  time  which  elapsed 
between  the  recession  of  the  ice  sheet  and  the  birth 
of  the  river,  are  insufficient. 


ARGUMENTATION.  159 

III.    In  the  absence  of  sufficient  data  all  mathematical 
computations  are  valueless. 

This  Brief  U  is  admirable,  like  Brief  Ht  for  the  careful 
correlation  of  the  parts.  The  steady  development  of  the 
ideas  to  a  climax  should  be  noted.  It  is  strong,  too,  in 
the  direct  and  simple  way  in  which  it  treats  a  somewhat 
technical  subject. 

Brief  V. 

Should  Boston  adopt  a  System  of  Underground  or  of 
Elevated  Transit? 

Introduction. 

I.    The   following  statements  show  that  Boston's  transit 
facilities  are  inadequate  : 

A.  An  insufficient  number  of  cars  are  run. 

B.  As  a  result  passengers  often  have  to  stand  in  cars. 

C.  Progress  in  the  so-called  "  congested  district "  is  very 
slow,  as  is  shown  by  the  facts  that 

i.    There  are  only  surface  cars  to  take. 
2.    The  crowded  streets  delay  surface  cars. 
II.   Two  facts  prove  that  Boston  greatly  needs  more  rapid 
transit :  ,         • 

A.  The  lack  of  rapid  transit  checks  its  growth,  in  that1 

i.    A  city  grows  fastest  in  its  suburbs. 
2.    Suburbs  cannot  grow  without  rapid  transit  to 
the  city. 

B.  Rapid  transit  diminishes  the  number  of  tenement 
houses,2  in  that 

i.    It  makes  it  possible  for  workingmen  to  live  in 
the  suburbs. 

1  Report  of  Rapid  Transit  Commission,  p.  229. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  16, 


160  ARGUMENT  A  TION. 

III.  The  following  conditions  bear  witness  that  surface  cars 
can  in  no  way  give  relief. 

A.  The  present  lines  are  run  as  well  as  possible  under 

present  conditions,1  in  that 
i .    The  streets  are  too  crowded  to  permit  a  greater 
number  of  cars  or  higher  speed. 

B.  More  rapid  progress  cannot  be  attained  by  widen- 

ing streets,  in  that 
i.    The  expense  would  be  prohibitory. 

C.  The  traffic  on  Washington  and  Tremont  streets,  the 

most  crowded,  may  not  be  diverted  to  neighboring 
parallel  ones,  as  the  following  facts  show : 

i.  They  are  shut  in  between  the  thickly  crowded 
district  and  Beacon  Hill.2 

2.    The  people  will  not  permit  use  of  the  Common. 

IV.  Since  rapid  transit  cannot  be  procured  on  the  surface, 
the  question  is  whether  to  go  above  or  below  the  sur- 
face, whether  to  build  an  elevated  railroad  or  some 
form  of  underground  road,  such  as 

i.  A  subway,  a  tunnel  near  enough  to  the  surface  to 
be  dug  by  the  "  cut  and  cover "  method.  This 
consists  in  digging  a  trench  and  then  roofing  it. 

2.  A  deep  tunnel,3  about  fifty  feet  below  the  surface, 
and  built  by  the  Greathead  system.  By  this  a 
"  shield,"  a  cylinder  with  a  cutting  edge  is  forced 
along  by  hydraulic  presses,  and  the  earth  inside 
the  "shield"  being  excavated,  the  tunnel  thus 
formed  is  preserved  by  laying  a  continuous  tube  of 
iron  as  large  as  the  shield. 

1  Mayor  Matthews,  Boston  Herald,  Feb.  28,  1894. 

2  Report  of  Rapid  Transit  Commission,  p.  262. 
»/foV.,p.  156. 


ARGUMENTATION.  161 

Brief  Proper. 

The  Greathead  system  of  tunnels  should  be  adopted,  for 
I.    Tunnels  would  not  injure  the  city,  as  would  an  elevated 
road  or  subway,  for 

A.  They  would  not  hurt  the  streets,  for 

i.    They  would  not  obstruct  them  by  posts. 

2.  They  would  not  darken  them. 

3.  They  would  not  make  them  unsightly. 

B.  They  would  not  make  the  city  noisy. 

C.  They  would  not  injure  business  during  construc- 
tion, for 

1.    They  would  not  drive  away  trade,  for 
a.    They  would  not  obstruct  streets.1 
II.    Only  deep  tunnels  would  equally  accommodate  all  dis- 
tricts, for 

A.  East  Boston  and  other  suburbs  are  separated  from 
the  city  by  water. 

B.  Transit  by  elevated  roads  would  be  hindered  by 
ferries  or  drawbridges. 

C.    Water  is  no  great  hindrance  to  a  Greathead  tunnel, 
for 
1.    In    London,    where  water  was   encountered,2 
"  the  work  was  done  without  any  great  diffi- 
culty." 
III.    A  system  of  tunnels  would  procure  the  most  rapid  tran- 
sit, for 
A.    The  speed  would  be  as  great  as  on  an  elevated,  for 

1.  An    electric    motor    would    be    used    on    an 

elevated.3 

2.  An  electric  motor  that  could  be  used  on  an 

elevated  could  be  used  in  a  tunnel. 

1  Resolutions  Anti-Subway  League,  Boston  Herald,  April  II, 

2  Report  o£-Raj>id  Transit  Commission,  p.  156. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  78. 


162  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

B.    A  tunnel  would  take  a  passenger  most  directly  to 
his  destination,  for 

i .    An  elevated  road  would  have  to  take  a  round- 
about course,1  for 
(a)   The  expense  of  cutting  a  new  street 
through  the  congested  district  would  be 
too  great. 
(J?)   Land  damages  on  present  streets  would 
be  too  great,  for 
a.    The  streets  are  so  narrow  that  an 
elevated  structure  would  shut  out 
a  great  deal  of  light  and  otherwise 
injure  property. 
2.    Only  a  tunnel  could  go  straight  through  the 
"  congested  district." 
(a)    It  would  not  have  to  pay  damages. 
a.    It  would  go  deep  enough  not  to  dis- 
turb foundations. 
(J?)    It  could  safely  be  built  under  buildings, 
for 
a.    Tunnels  have  been  so  built  in  London.2 

Refutation. 

I.    A  tunnel  here  would  not  have  the  defects  of  the  London 
one,3  for 

A.  That  was  built  too  small,  since 

i.    It  was  an  experiment, 
2.    Expense  had  to  be  saved. 

B.  That  was  built  crooked,  under  the  streets,  for 

i.    It  was  not  then  thought  safe  to  build  under 
houses. 

1  Report  of  Rapid  Transit  Commission,  p.  69. 
*Ihid.t  p.  155. 
*  /bid.,  p.  188, 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  163 

C.    A  tunnel  here  would  not  be  an  experiment  and  liable 
to  these  errors. 
II.    People  would  not  be  deprived  of  pleasant  rides,  for 

A.  They  never  ride  in  the  crowded  districts  simply  for 

pleasure. 

B.  Underground  roads  would  be  built  only  in  crowded 

districts,1  since 
i.   They  would  not  pay  elsewhere. 

III.  Tunnels  would  not  be  disagreeably  cold,  since 

A.  The  temperature  would  not  be  greatly  different  from 

that  at  the  surface,  for 
i.    The  air  would  be  frequently  changed,  for 
(a)    The  car  would  force  out  and  draw  in  air 
—  not  the  case  in  a  subway.2 
2.    On  the  London  electric  road  the  temperature 
is  between  500  and  550.3 

B.  The  tunnels  would  be  cooler  than  the  outside  air  in 

summer  and  warmer  in  winter. 

IV.  Tunnels  would  not  be  badly  ventilated,  for 

A.  If  electricity  is  used  as  a  motive  power  there  is  little 

to  make  the  air  impure.4 

B.  The  car  would  force  out  impure  air. 

V.    It  would   not  be  financially  impracticable  to  build  a 
system  of  tunnels,  for 
A.    The  expense  would  not  be  vastly  greater  than  that 
of  an  elevated  road,  for 
1.    While  the  expenses  of  construction  would  be 
greater,  the  land  damages  would  be  less. 
(a)    The   construction   and  equipment  of   12 
miles  of  tunnel  would  cost  $i8,ooo,ooo.5 

1  Report  of  Rapid  Transit  Commission,  p.  17. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  1 56.  3  Ibid. 

4  W.  B.  Parsons.     Report  to  N.  Y.  Rapid  Transit  Commission,  Engineer- 
ing News,  Oct.  18,  1894. 

6  Osborne  Howes,  Boston  Herald,  April  10,  1894. 


1 64  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

(b)    The  damages  would  be  nothing. 
(V)    The  construction  and  equipment  of  13.5 
miles  of  elevated  would  cost  $1 0,000,000. 1 
(d)    Cost  of  street  widening  and  land  and 
damages  would  be  $6,000,000. 
2.   The  expense  will  not  be  likely  to  exceed  the 
calculated  amount,2  for 
(a)   The  uncertain  expenses  of  cost  of  land 
and  damages  do  not  have  to  be  con- 
sidered. 
3.   The  cost  of  repairs  per  mile  per  year  for  an 
elevated  road  is  $2,000,  while  a  tunnel  once 
built  is  "  complete  for  all  time."  3 
B.   A  tunnel   system   here   in   Boston  could  pay  6  % 
dividends  from  the  start,4  for 

1.  The  yearly  revenue  would  be  $1,825,000,  for 

(a)  The  number  of  passengers,  100,000, 
assumed  by  Mayor  Matthews  for  the 
elevated  road,  may  be  assumed  for  the 
tunnels. 

2.  The  expenses  would  be  $868,288,  for 

(a)  This  is  the  expense  assumed  by  Mayor 
Matthews  for  the  elevated  road, 

(b)  We  may  assume  the  same  expense. 

3.  The  profit,  $1,000,000,  would  pay  5  °/0  interest 
on  $1,000,000,  half  the  total  amount  of  bonds, 
and  6  °/0  dividends  on  $9,000,000  of  stock. 

Conclusion. 

Since  the  Greathead  system  of  tunnels  would  not  injure  the 
city,  would  best  accommodate  all  districts,  and  would  give  most 

1  Rapid  Transit  Report,  p.  86. 

2  See  note  5,  p.  163. 

3  See  Rapid  Transit  Report,  p.  112. 

4  Osborne  Howes,  Boston  Herald,  April  10,  1894. 


A  A'  G  UMENTA  TION.  165 

rapid  transit ;  and  since  the  objections  that  the  tunnel  in 
Boston  must  have  the  faults  of  the  London  "  Greathead,"  would 
deprive  the  people  of  pleasant  rides,  would  be  disagreeably  cold 
in  winter,  would  be  badly  ventilated,  and  financially  imprac- 
ticable, do  not  hold  good,  a  Greathead  deep  tunnel  is  prefer- 
able for  Boston  to  an  elevated  road  or  a  subway. 


fs 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  PREPARATORY  READING  FOR  ARGUMENTATION. 

WE  have  seen  that  a  student,  in  analyzing  a  question 
that  is  to  be  debated,  must  read  to  learn  what  is 
the  origin  of  the  question  ;  what  the  terms  mean ;  what 
facts  are  admitted  by  both  sides  ;  and  what  matters  appar- 
ently connected  with  his  subject  are  really  extraneous. 
Moreover,  when  by  this  reading  and  analysis  he  has  found 
the  special  issue  in  his  case,  he  will  probably  not  only  con- 
sider for  himself  the  relations  that  the  special  issue  bears 
to  the  other  ideas  connected  with  his  subject,  but  will 
seek  information  from  others.  That  is,  he  will  continue 
his  reading.  After  this  work  has  been  done,  he  is  ready, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  draw  up  his  brief.  When,  however, 
he  seeks  for  the  detailed  proof  that  the  ideas  of  his  brief 
proper  are  correct,  he  must  read  anew.  It  is  evident, 
then,  that  the  method  of  reading  in  preparing  for  argu- 
mentative work  may  be  important. 

A  Common  Method  of  Reading. 

Among  college  students  a  method  frequently  used  in 
preparing  for  an  argument,  is  to  take  some  subject  on 
which  the  writer  has  thought  only  a  little  or  none  at  all, 
and  to  read  carefully  all  that  can  be  found  which  bears 
favorably  on  the  view  the  student,  without  consideration, 
forms.  When  all  the  material  easily  accessible  has  been 
examined,  he  puts  his  opinions  on  paper  rapidly.     Perhaps 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  167 

he  glances,  in  passing,  at  a  few  ideas,  chanced  upon  in 
his  reading,  which  may  be  advanced  against  his  view. 
Such  preparation  as  this  breaks  two  fundamental  laws  of 
good  argumentation  when  the  object  sought  is  truth. 

Two  Rules  to  prevent  Hasty  Preparation  of  an 
Argument. 

The  first  rule  is  :  When  a  student  has  a  question  to 
debate  and  has  decided  what  the  special  issue  is,  he  should 
examine  the  co?itent  of  his  own  mind  on  the  subject  to  see 
just  what  it  is :  how  much  of  it  is  clearly  defined  opinion  ; 
how  much  is  mere  vague  speculation ;  how  much  of  it  rests 
on  experie7ice  or  evidence  of  any  sort  tipon  which  he  can 
place  his  hand  in  books  or  through  people ;  and  how  much 
is  only  vague  impression,  prejtidice,  or  the  mere  wish  that 
the  affirmative  or  the  negative  of  the  proposition  may  be 
true.  The  second  rule  is  :  In  the  study  of  a  debatable  mat- 
ter, remember  that  to  imderstand  exactly  what  is  the  work 
to  be  done  a  student  must  know  as  well  what  can  be  said 
against  him  as  for  him. 

The   First  Rule. 

To  illustrate  the  value  of  the  first  law.  If  a  student 
will  consider  carefully  the  ideas  that  are  in  his  mind  in 
regard  to  Spiritualism,  Christian  Science,  the  advisability 
of  the  University  Extension  movement,  or  on  what  his 
allegiance  to  the  Republican  or  the  Democratic  party 
rests,  he  will  probably  soon  recognize  how  much  vague- 
ness, mere  speculation,  hearsay,  and  prejudice  there  is 
among  these  ideas.  If  he  is  to  debate  on  any  one  of 
these  subjects,  he   should,   in    beginning,    exclude   from 


168  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

his  work  as  rigidly  as  he  can  everything  in  the  content 
of  his  mind  bearing  on  the  case  except  clear-cut  opinions 
that  rest  on  evidence  of  his  own  mind  or  senses,  or  the 
minds  and  senses  of  other  people.  Let  him  exclude 
from  his  argument  vague  opinions  and  impressions,  until 
by  study  of  his  subject,  he  can  clear  the  opinions  of 
vagueness  and  change  the  impressions  to  well-grounded 
opinions.  Let  him  shut  out  his  old  prejudices  as  far  as 
he  possibly  can  in  preparing  for  and  in  treating  the  ques- 
tion. In  other  words,  let  him  clear  his  mind  for  action, 
and  leave  only  what  is  not  vague  and  rests  on  proof. 
This  process  cuts  down  decidedly  the  material  with 
which  he  will  start,  but  it  separates  the  wheat  from  the 
chaff.  The  remainder  is  much  more  valuable  than  the 
original  greater  mass  of  material.  It  is  because  clever 
men  sometimes  do  not  subject  themselves  to  any  such 
process  of  preliminary  self-scrutiny,  but  rush  into  the 
forensic  contest  or  their  preparatory  reading,  that  their 
wide  reading  and  its  brilliant  use  often  go  for  naught 
before  the  work  of  a  slower  mind  that  has  been  rigidly 
self-scrutinizing  at  the  outset  and  then  read  carefully.1 

The  Second  Rule. 

In  any  argument  that  amounts  to  anything,  there  is  no 
clear  road  to  victory.  Sir  George  Cornwall  Lewis,  speak- 
ing of  his  dialogue  on  The  Best  Form  of  Government 
said :  "  It  is  a  controversy  consisting  of  a  debtor  and 
creditor  account :  the  difficulty  lies  in  striking  the  balance 
fairly.     The  weights  in  one  scale  may  be  less  heavy  than 

1  This  self-scrutiny  before  beginning  debate  is  fundamental  in  most  of 
the  Socratic  dialogues  of  Plato.  Socrates  forced  his  questioner  to  subject 
himself  to  it.     See  the  Euthyphro  and  the  Gorgias. 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  169 

the  weights  in  the  other  scale,  but  they  are,  nevertheless, 
weights.  Such  is  the  nature  of  nearly  all  moral  and 
political  problems.  When  the  discussion  is  conducted 
on  both  sides  by  competent  disputants,  there  are  almost 
always  valid  arguments  in  favor  of  each  of  the  two 
opposite  opinions.  The  difficulty  is  to  determine  which 
of  two  sets  of  valid  arguments  preponderates."  1  Each 
side  in  argumentation,  then,  will  have  its  strong  and  its 
weak  places ;  and  the  brilliant  forensic  worker  will,  like 
the  great  general,  know  not  only  where  all  the  weak 
places  as  well  as  the  strong  in  his  own  lines  are,  but,  as 
far  as  possible,  the  weak  and  the  strong  in  his  enemy's. 
He  must  know  where  to  expect  attack,  if  he  is  not  to  be 
disastrously  surprised  :  he  must  know  where  he  may  best 
concentrate  his  assault  if  he  is  to  overcome  his  opponent. 
A  great  part  of  the  rapid  success  of  the  German  army 
in  the  Franco-Prussian  War  has  been  attributed  to  the 
care  used  to  keep  the  officers  and  their  aides  informed  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  country  in  which  they  were  manceu- 
vering  their  troops.  It  is  said  that,  whenever  a  body  of 
German  soldiery  moved  to  a  new  position  which  it  was  to 
hold  for  a  time,  the  officer  in  command,  on  taking  up  the 
position,  at  once  summoned  his  under-officers,  and  with  a 
map  of  the  country  spread  out  on  the  floor  before  him 
gave  them  a  "quiz"  on  the  lay  of  the  land.  They  were 
obliged  to  know  the  names  of  the  surrounding  villages 
and  hamlets,  what  roads  ran  out  of  the  town  occupied, 
the  cross-roads,  the  points  of  vantage  and  of  danger ;  in 
a  word  the  military  topography  of  the  region.  When  the 
lesson  was  completed,  they  were  sent    forward  to  their 

1  Preface  to   The  Best  Form  of  Government.     G.  C.  Lewis,  1813.  Lon- 
don: Parker,  Son,  &  I'rown. 


170  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

posts.  To  surprise  men  prepared  in  this  way  was  well- 
nigh  impossible.  Argumentation,  too,  is  a  warfare  in 
which  words  are  the  weapons,  sentences  and  paragraphs 
are  the  troops,  and  the  speaker  or  writer  is  the  general. 

Ordinary  argument,  of  course,  does  not  fail  completely 
to  consider  the  opponent's  work ;  it  simply  notes  the 
arguments  stumbled  upon  in  the  writer's  reading,  does 
not  try  to  master  the  opponent's  case.  What  is  omitted, 
however,  may  be  just  the  knowledge  that  will  lose  or  win 
the  argumentation.  For  instance,  it  is  very  easy  in 
studying  some  subjects  to  read  with  care  on  the  matter 
and  yet  to  get  but  one  view  of  the  question.  If  a  student 
is  asked  :  Can  there  be  a  Science  of  Criticism  ?  and 
reads  only  what  Brunetiere,  or  Lemaitre,  or  Hennequin, 
says  on  the  matter,  he  will  be  dominated  by  the  ideas  of 
the  one  critic  read,  and  though  he  may  have  seen  a  little 
of  some  objections  to  the  particular  theories  advanced, 
they  will  seem  weak  and  unimportant.  It  is  only  by 
reading  the  opinions  of  all  these  three  men,  whose 
methods  differ  widely,  that  the  different  views  of  the 
question  can  be  clearly  seen.  If,  too,  a  student  is  asked: 
Were  the  Colonists  or  the  Indians  to  blame  for  King 
Philip's  War  ?  he  will  find  that  books  have  been  written 
entirely  in  favor  of  each  side.  If  he  reads  books  of 
either  sort,  he  can  write  only  an  ineffective  argument, 
for  he  does  not  know  what  can  be  said  against  him.  If 
he  reads  a  book  evidently  written  to  support  the  Colonists 
against  the  Indians,  he  should  search  for  a  book  support- 
ing the  Indians  against  the  Colonists,  and  by  weighing 
the  arguments  on  both  sides  should  decide  which  set  of 
ideas  preponderates,  or,  at  least,  what  arguments  he 
must  answer  if  he  is  to  support  either  side.      A   student 


ARGUMENTATION.  171 

should  remember,  then,  that  to  argue  successfully  he  must 
read  ividely  and  critically  in  order  to  comprehend  the  case 
as  a  whole.  That  is,  he  must  study  not  only  all  that  can 
be  said  in  his  behalf,  but  also  all  that  can  be  said  in 
behalf  of  his  opponent. 

A  Third  Result  of  Hasty  Preparation. 

Hasty  preparation  without  any  preliminary  scrutiny  of 
the  content  of  one's  mind  on  the  subject  in  debate  and 
without  search  for  the  strength  of  an  opponent's  case 
has  another  marked  danger  for  the  beginner  in  argu- 
mentation. The  result  of  this  hasty,  ill-considered  work 
is  a  mere  abstract  of  the  volumes  read.  The  books, 
often  written  carefully,  even  if  prejudicedly,  naturally 
state  the  ideas  but  crudely  phrased  in  the  worker's  mind 
better  than  he  can,  and  therefore  he  is  unable  to  throw 
off  their  influence.  The  ideas  that  are  new  to  him 
dominate  him,  because  they  accord  with  what  he  wishes 
to  believe  and  he  has  read  little  or  nothing  with  which  to 
combat  them.  He  does  not  make  a  servile  copy  of  the 
book,  but  he  offers  a  jumbled  paraphrase  of  it  that  is  not 
much  better.  The  danger,  though  especially  common 
with  beginners  in  argumentation,  is  by  no  means  confined 
to  them.  The  late  Bishop  Brooks  said  to  the  Yale  divin- 
ity students  in  his  lectures  on  preaching  :  "  The  man  of 
special  preparation  is  always  crude  ;  he  is  always  tempted 
to  take  up  some  half-considered  thought  that  strikes  him 
in  the  hurry  of  his  reading,  and  adopt  it  suddenly,  and 
set  it  before  the  people,  as  if  it  were  his  true'  conviction. 
Many  a  minister's  sermons  are  scattered  all  over  with 
ideas  which  he  never  held,  but  which  once  held  him  for  a 


1 72  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

week,  like  the  camps  in  other  men's  forests,  where  a  wan- 
dering hunter  has  slept  for  a  single  night."1  This  fault 
can  be  avoided  only  by  observance  of  the  rule  already 
given  for  wide,  and  above  all,  critical  reading.  The  man 
who  understands  the  value  of  every  idea  he  uses  cannot 
commit  this  error. 

Two  Rules  for  the  Use  of  Material  not 
One's  Own. 

Students  sJiould  remember,  that  (i)  whenever  they  give 
another's  words  exactly,  quote  him,  they  should  place  the 
words  within  quotation  marks,  and  in  a  footnote  acknowl- 
edge their  indebtedness,  naming  the  source  of  the  quotation, 
the  chapter  or  page,  and,  if  there  is  more  than  one  volume 
or  edition,  the  volume  and  the  editioii  used ;  (2)  they 
should  not,  by  mere  parapJirasing,  seek  to  win  credit  for 
ideas  that  are  really  another's. 

Sometimes  a  clever  student  will  re-state  a  writer's 
thoughts  in  fewer  words  or  more  clearly,  but  if  he  is  per- 
fectly honest,  he  will  acknowledge  in  a  footnote  that  the 
gist  of  his  words  is  borrowed,  and  tell  whence  it  is  taken. 
These  two  laws,  too  often  transgressed,  are  really  but 
common  honesty  in  literary  work. 

Individuality,  Originality,   in  Argumentation. 

The  objection  may  be  raised  here  that  the  work  of 
which  we  have  been  speaking  seems  to  lead  only  to 
servile  copying  of  others  or  to  compiling  from  their  work, 
and  to  prevent  any  originality  on  the  part  of  a  student. 
The  questions,  however,  in  which  a  student  can  depend 

1  Lectures  on  Preaching,  p.  157. 


ARGUMENTATION.  173 

entirely  on  his  own  experience  and  his  own  thinking  for 
arguments  for  his  side  are  very  rare.  Even  in  these 
rare  cases  he  must  look  beyond  himself  for  most  of  the 
objections  likely  to  be  raised  against  him.  In  nearly  all 
cases  he  must,  in  considering  both  sides  of  his  case,  read 
the  work  of  others.  What  has  been  said  is,  therefore, 
but  a  statement  of  the  preparation  that  underlies  all  care- 
ful, intelligent,  and  ultimately  convincing  argumentation 
—  wide  reading,  and  careful,  critical  consideration  of  the 
material  pro  and  con.  Moreover,  it  means  much  more 
than  copying  or  mere  compilation  for  all  except  the 
worker  who  is  content  simply  to  read,  not  to  think  as  he 
reads  and  after  he  has  finished  reading.  It  is  the  thought 
that  a  worker  spends  on  the  material  he  gathers  that 
gives  old  ideas  new  forms,  new  meanings,  that  finds 
previously  unrecognized  relations  and  suggestions  in 
them,  which  makes  the  worker  have  a  right  to  call 
them  his  own  as  he  presents  them  to  his  audience.  Two 
statements  of  this  fact,  one  from  a  college  student,  the 
other  from  James  Russell  Lowell,  will  perhaps  make  it 
convincing  for  any  to  whom  it  is  not  self-evident.  The 
student  wrote : — 

"  Every  one  who  has  read  much  when  working  up  some  topic 
has  often  had  the  experience  of  finding  when  he  has  read  a 
large  number  of  books  that  he  has  in  the  end  some  idea  or 
theory,  parts  of  which  he  can  trace  to  almost  every  book  of 
the  number,  the  whole  of  which  he  can  hardly  recognize  as 
belonging  to  any  one.  He  hardly  understands  the  final  com- 
pound. He  cannot  say  that  it  belongs  to  the  author  of  any 
one  of  the  books  he  has  read.  He  cannot  even  say  it  is  a 
composite  of  the  ideas  of  all  the  books.  In  working  up  both 
my  forensics  this  year,  I  read  a  great  deal.     My  mind  kept  in 


1 74  A  KG  UMENTA  TION. 

a  perfect  boil  all  the  time,  and  after  each  book  or  article  I 
seemed  to  have  a  different  conformation  of  ideas.  Ideas  of 
my  own  that  I  started  out  with  were  totally  or  almost  entirely 
changed  in  the  end.  Nor  had  I  apparently  changed  them  for 
those  of  any  one  else.  They  were  not  on  the  other  hand  origi- 
nal. I  am  sure  every  one  some  one  had  thought  of  before. 
In  fact,  they  had  flashed  through  my  own  mind  in  a  vague  way 
at  different  times  in  my  life.  My  forensics  were,  in  short,  little 
like  my  own  original  ideas  and  they  were  not  the  ideas  In  any 
exact  sense  of  any  one  else.  I  had  taken  the  ideas  of  other 
men  and  moulded  mine  by  them.  My  application  of  them  was 
often  very  different  from  the  application  of  the  authors  them- 
selves, yet  I  had  used  them  and  owed  them  something." 

This  is  the  poet's  view  of  the  case  :  — 

"Franciscus  de  Verulamio  sic  cogitavit." 

That 's  a  rather  bold  speech,  my  Lord  Bacon, 
For,  indeed,  is  't  so  easy  to  know 
Just  how  much  we  from  others  have  taken, 
And  how  much  our  own  natural  flow  ? 

Since  your  mind  bubbled  up  at  its  fountain 
How  many  streams  made  it  elate, 
While  it  calmed  to  the  plain  from  the  mountain, 
As  every  mind  must  that  grows  great  ? 

While  you  thought  't  was  you  thinking  as  newly 
As  Adam  still  wet  with  God's  dew, 
You  forgot  in  your  self-pride  that  truly 
The  whole  Past  was  thinking  through  you. 

Greece,  Rome,  nay,  your  namesake,  old  Roger, 
With  Truth's  nameless  delvers  who  wrought 
In  the  dark  mines  of  Truth,  helped  to  prod  your 
Fine  brain  with  the  goad  of  their  thought. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  1 75 

As  mummy  was  prized  for  the  rich  hue 

The  painter  no  elsewhere  could  find, 

So  't  was  buried  men's  thinking  with  which  you 

Gave  the  ripe  mellow  tone  to  your  mind. 

I  heard  the  proud  strawberry  saying, 
"  Only  look  what  a  ruby  I  've  made  !  " 
It  forgot  how  the  bees  in  their  Maying 
Had  brought  it  the  stuff  for  its  trade. 

And  yet  there  's  the  half  of  a  truth  in  it, 

And  my  Lord  might  his  copyright  sue  ; 

For  a  thought 's  his  who  kindles  new  youth  in  it, 

Or  so  puts  it  as  makes  it  more  true. 

The  birds  but  repeat  without  ending 
The  same  old  traditional  notes, 
Which  some,  by  more  happily  blending 
Seem  to  make  ever  new  in  their  throats  ; 

And  we  men  through  our  old  bit  of  song  run, 
Until  one  just  improves  on  the  rest, 
And  we  call  a  thing  his  in  the  long  run, 
Who  utters  it  clearest  and  best.1 

Summary. 

In  brief,  then,  in  preparing  for  the  discussion  of  a 
proposition  a  student  should  (1)  examine  the  content  of 
his  own  mind  on  the  subject  and  clear  it  for  action  ; 
(2)  strive  to  understand  the  case  for  his  opponent  as  well 
as  he  does  his  own ;  (3)  read  (a)  widely,  {b)  with  careful, 
critical  consideration  of  the  material  for  and  against  him ; 
and  (4)  by  passing  all  the  material  through  his  own 
thought  transmute  it  into  new  shapes,  give  it  a  new  sig- 
nificance, impart  to  it  something  of  himself,  —  in  a  word, 
make  it  his  own. 

1  Heartsease  and  ^?^,vLoweH's  Works,  p.  197.     Houghton  &  Mifflin. 


CHAPTER   V. 

EVIDENCE. 

I.     THE   NATURE   OF   EVIDENCE. 

What  Assertion  is. 

THE  most  common  fault  in  argumentation  is  asser- 
tiveness,  that  is,  the  unqualified  affirmation  that 
something  is  true  or  false,  wise  or  foolish,  etc.,  without 
any  statement  of  the  reasons  w  ly  the  writer  or  speaker 
holds  his  opinion.  When,  for  i  istance,  a  minister,  talk- 
ing recently  to  his  congregation  on  the  lessons  to  be 
drawn  from  the  war  between  China  and  Japan,  told  them 
that  the  reason  for  the  success  of  the  Japanese  was 
that  they  keep  Sunday  anil  the  Chinese  do  not,  he 
asserted.  Any  cautious  mpmber  of  the  congregation 
might  well  have  wished  to  be  given  proof  that  the  Japan- 
ese as  a  nation  keep  Sunday  in  the  exact  sense  in  which 
Americans  do.  Even  if  he  granted  this,  as  he  might  be 
willing  to  do,  he  would  certainly  have  wished  to  hear 
proof  that  this  custom  among  the-Japanese  is  not  only  a 
sufficient  cause  to  lead  to  so  great  a  result  as  the  over- 
whelming success  of  the  Japanese  army,  but  the  only 
cause.  Had  the  minister  been  asked,  after  his  sermon, 
to  give  such  proof,  the  absurdity  of  his  sweeping  state- 
ment would  soon  have  been  laid  bare.  Such  treatment 
of  a  subject  as  the  minister  gave  his  requires  a  reader  or 
hearer  to  take  simply  on  the  word  of  the  writer  or 
speaker  whatever  he  asserts.  Such  implicit  confidence 
one  has,  of  course,  a  perfect  right  to  refuse  to  all  comers. 


A  k  G  UMENTA  TION.  1 7  7 

The  Argument  from  Authority. 

Indeed,  under  only  one  set  of  conditions  is  unsup- 
ported assertion  safe.  There  are  men  and  books  which 
are  regarded  as  authorities  on  the  subjects  they  treat,  and 
their  testimony  as  to  facts  and  inferences  from  facts  is 
accepted  unquestioningly.  For  the  Puritan  of  1620  the 
Bible  was  authoritative,  an  unquestionable  statement  of 
the  will  of  God.  For  the  good  American  to-day  what 
the  Constitution  sanctions'  is  right  ;  what  it  does  not 
sanction,  even  impliedly,  is  wrong.  The  Puritan  of  1620 
settled  an  argument  by  quoting  as  final  and  indisputable 
a  text  of  the  Bible.  To-day  an  American  at  times  quotes 
in  the  same  way  an  article  of  the  Constitution.  These 
men  give,  not  a  careful  statement  of  the  reasons  for  a 
belief  held  by  them,  but  merely  an  unsupported  state- 
ment of  another  ;  that  is,  they  use  the  so-called  Argu- 
ment from  Authority.  When  it  is  proper  to  use  this,  then, 
and  then  only,  is  an  unqualified  affirmation  of  something 
as  true  permissible. 

The  Dangers  of  the  Argument  from  Authority. 

If  a  student  considers  when  it  is  proper  to  use  this 
Argument  from  Authority,  in  what  its  strength  consists, 
he  will  see  that  it  must  be  used  with  great  care  ;  that  it  is 
of  variable  value  ;  that  the  final  judge  as  to  the  propriety 
of  using  it  at  any  time  is,  not  the  writer  or  speaker  him- 
self, but  the  audience  addressed  ;  and  that  at  any  moment 
its  authoritativeness  is  liable  to  be  questioned,  when  the 
assertion  must  be  supported  like  any  ordinary  statement. 
The    strength   of  the   Argument   from  Authority  comes 


ARGUMENTATION. 

imately  from  the  fact  that  people  in  general  may  be 
umed  to  admit  that  on  the  subject  under  discussion 
!  book  or  the  person  cited  cannot  state  ideas  or  make 
Igments  incorrectly.     With  books  and  men  this  power 
nes  either  from   inspirational  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
in  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  Mohammed  in  the  Bible 
1  the  Koran,  or  from  a  reputation  for  truthfulness  ami 
>found  knowledge  of  the  subjects  treated  which  the 
iter  or  speaker  has  at  some  time  gained.     A  form  ol  Un- 
called Argument  from  Authority  much  used  In  1 
irs  is  the  testimony  of  experts.     Men  are  asked  to 
nions  as  to  matters  which  require  years  of  pn 
ttial  study  of  them  if  accurate  answers  are  to  be  made, 
e  men  selected  for  such  testimony  are  always  chosen 
:ause  their  probity  and  their  special  study  of  the  subject 
ier   discussion    arc    known   to   be   widely   recognized, 
urts,   in  trials  for  murder  and  forgery,  have  tried  to 
;ard  the  assertions  of  such  men   as   to   the  common 
horship  of  two  signatures,  as  to  the  necessarily 
jet  of  the  dose  of  medicine  found  in  the  body,  as  final, 
rhat  the  same  assertion  may,  in  different  places,  undo 
rerent  circumstances,  vary  in  its  degree  of  convii 
It  will  also  be  clear  after  a  little  thought.    For  instam  e, 
>pose  that   in   discussing  with  a  Mohamim  dan    some 
rstion  of  morality  a  Christian  quotes  som  ;t   ol 

Bible  as  final  authority  in  the  matter.     Unless  this 
cept,   which  for  the  Chri  unenl 

m  authority,  is  in  the  Koran  also,  the  Mohammedan 
I  not  feel  the  force  of  it,  may  eveOi  <1  lthor- 

iveness,  ask  the  Christian  to  show  him  why  this  pre 
>t  should  be  unhesitatingly  followed.  Certainly  tin 
ristian  would  behave  in  the  same  way  as  the  Mohan* 


AJti  AT/OAT. 

mcdan,  if  the  latter  tried  to  clinch  his  argument  by  cit 
as  final  authority  something  in  the  Koran   which  is 
found  in  the  Bible.     The  famous  scientist  who  talks  i 
series  of    University  ion  lectures  to  a  somew 

ignorant  audience  may,  if  he  is  clear  in  explaining  j 

he  believes,  venture  to  make  a  good  many  asserti< 
on  the  strength  of  Ivs  reputation.  A  much  more  in 
ligent  audience  which  knows  that  some  of  the  views 
which  this  man  clings  are  fiercely  combatted  by  ot 
will  not  be  so  willing  to  trust  his  mere  ass 
tions.  This  is  true,  not  because  the  audience  dou 
his    I)  but    rather    his    complete    mastery   of 

subject. 

.  too,  the  moment  that  any  man  doubts  eit 
the  honesty  or  the  knowledge  of  a  writer  or  speaker  i 
asks  for  reasons  why  he  should  accept  the  statem 
omes  for  him  only  a  mere  assertion  in  n< 
of  all  the  support  that  bare  assertion  usually  requii 
The  doubt  may  be  entirely  unjustified,  but  if  it  exists 
■rgui  in  authority  is  merely  an  assertion. 

In  brief,  then,  the  Argument  from  Authority  require 
linission  by  the  public  addressed,  be  it  large 
small,  of  the  authority  of  the  book  or  speaker.  Willi 
that  admission  rests  ultimately  on  a  gene 
belief  in  (</)  the  honesty  of  the  writer  or  speaker,  (b) 
mastery  of  his  subject.  The  Argument  from  Authoi 
evidently,  then,  must  not  be  used  until  thought  has  b< 
given  as  to  its  probable  authoritativeness  for  the  audiei 
in  mind  Its  force  fails  the  moment  its  authoritativen 
is  questioned,  and  it  is  likely  to  be  questioned,  rightly 
wrongly,  at  any  moment.     When  that  moment  comes, 

ment  from  Authority  is  at  once  but  a  mere  asserti 


180  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

and  reasons  for  believing  it  true  must  be  produced  forth- 
with. 

Proof  :    Its  Origin  and  What  it  is. 

Evidently,  then,  the  only  permissible  use  of  unsup- 
ported assertion  depends  on  a  recognition  by  the  public 
addressed  of  the  plausibility  of  the  statement  made  and 
the  honesty  and  the  scholarliness  of  the  person  cited.  It 
must  be  clear  that  but  comparatively  few  men  can  stand 
all  these  tests.  Either  their  statements,  like  that  of  the 
minister  cited  on  page  176,  seem  startling,  or  the  audi- 
ence is  ignorant  of  their  qualifications  or  suspicious  of 
them.  Something  in  the  assertion  made,  then,  or  in  the 
person  making  it,  will  cause  a  hearer  or  reader  to  ask 
for  the  reasons  for  the  belief  stated.  It  is  this  request 
for  an  explanation  of  the  grounds  on  which  a  belief  rests 
that  creates  proof.  "  This  word  seems  properly  to  mean 
anything  which  serves,  either  immediately  or  mediately,  to 
convince  the  mind  of  the  truth  or  the  false 'hood  of  a  fact  or 
proposition."1  Whatever,  then,  a  writer  or  speaker  offers 
in  support  of  his  statements  —  quotations,  logical  deduc- 
tions, skillful  analysis,  illustrations,  figures,  etc.,  etc.  — 
is,  taken  as  a  whole,  his  proof  of  their  truth.  Each 
portion  of  his  proof  is  evidence,  for  the  latter  is  "  that 
which  generates  proof.  Any  matter  of  fact,  the  effect, 
tendency,  or  design  of  whicJi  is  to  produce  in  the  mind  a 
persuasion  affirmative  or  disaffirmative  of  the  existence 
of  some  other  matter  of  fact '."  2  If  Analysis  and  Structure 
are  the  first  two  important  divisions  of  argumentation, 
Evidence  is  an  equally  important  third. 


1  Best,  On  Evidence,  p.  5.  2  Idem, 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  181 

Assertion  Ordinarily  does  not   prove  Anything   to   be 
True  or  False. 

The  almost  constant  need  in  argumentation  of  proof, 
of  evidence,  students  forget.  Even  those  who  analyze 
well,  and  construct  a  good  brief,  often  fail  in  supporting 
the  plan  they  have  drawn  up.  After  reading  widely 
among  writers  on  their  subject  they  feel  so  sure  of  the 
correctness  of  their  resulting  opinions  that  they  simply 
state  clearly  what  these  opinions  are  and  expect  their 
audiences  to  accept  their  words  without  question.  M 
student  should  remember  that  in  argumentation  he  has  fk> 
right,  except  when  he  is  sure  he  speaks  as  a  generally  recog- 
nized authority  on  his  subject,  to  ask  any  audience  to  accept 
as  conclusive  his  simple  affirmation  about  anything.  He 
should  remember  that  nothing  can  be  proved  true  by  asscr- 
tion\ 

It  is  just  this  idea,  that  assertion  proves  nothing,  which 
Sir  Thomas  Wyatt  insisted  pn  in  the  opening  of  his  plea 
for  his  life  when  accused  of  high  treason :  — 

"  First  you  must  understand  that  my  masters  here,  sergeant 
-,    and   other   of   the    King's  Counsel  that  allege  here 


against  me,  were  never  beyond  the  sea  with  me,  that  I  remem- 
ber. They  never  heard  me  say  any  such  words  there,  never 
saw  me  have  any  intelligence  with  Pole,  nor  my  indicters 
neither.  Wherein  you  must  mark,  that  neither  these  men 
which  talk  here  unsworn,  nor  the  indictment  at  large,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  evidence.  The  indicters  have  found  that  I  have 
done.  If  that  be  true,  what  need  your  trial  ?  but  if  quests 
fetch  their  light  at  indictments  at  large,  then  is  a  man  con- 
demned unheard;  then  had  my  Lord  Dacres  been  found 
guilty ;  for  he  was  indicted  at  large  by  four  or  five  quests ;  like 
was  his  matter  avowed,  affirmed,  and  aggravated  by  an  help  of 


182  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

learned  men ;  but  on  all  this  the  honourable  and  wise  nobility 
did  not  once  look  ;  they  looked  at  the  evidence,  in  which  they 
weighed,  I  suppose,  the  malice  of  his  accusers,  the  unlikelihood 
of  the  things  hanging  together,  and  chiefly  of  all,  the  substance 
of  the  matter  and  the  proofs."  * 

What  Pure  Assertion  produces  as  Argumentation. 

The  kind  of  work  produced  when  a  writer  entirely 
forgets,  or  never  knew,  that  simple  assertion  proves  noth- 
ing, the  following  forensic,  already  quoted  in  part  for 
another  purpose  (pp.  17-18),  will  show:  — 

"Was  the  Course  of  the  Beaconsfield  Ministry  in  the 
Eastern  Question  Advantageous  to  England? 

[1.]  In  1876  Bulgaria  declared  war  against  Turkey;  and  it 
was  in  this  war  that  Turkey  committed  the  horrible  massacres 
known  as  the  '  Bulgarian  Atrocities.' 

[2.]  The  war  would  never  have  been  begun  between  Turkey 
and  Bulgaria,  had  it  not  been  for  Turkish  misrule,  which  was 
well  known  by  other  countries  as  well  as  by  Bulgaria.  Servia 
and  Montenegro  were  left  alone  to  fight  with  Turkey,  after  the 
other  states  which  belonged  to  the  '  confederacy '  were  obliged 
to  back  out  for  want  of  supplies.  Of  course,  these  two  states 
could  not  carry  on  war  with  Turkey  on  equal  footing,  and  soon 
a  treaty  for  peace  was  made. 

[3.]  Now  Russia  put  herself  forward,  and  the  Czar  demanded 
a  treaty  which  much  favored  Bulgaria.  At  this  point  Beacons- 
field  recognized  the  fact  that  Russia  wanted  to  get  Turkey  into 
her  own  power  and  thereby  enter  Constantinople,  which  would 
give  Russia  the  control  of  the  Black  Sea.  Therefore  Beacons- 
field  used  all  the  influence  he  could  to  preserve  peace  between 
Russia  and  Turkey. 

1  The  Poetical  Works  of  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt,  p.  Ixxii.     Bell  &  Daldy. 


A  KG  UMENTA  TION.  1 83 

[4.]  By  this  time  Russia  had  advanced  her  forces  as  far  as 
Adrianople. 

[5.]  Russia  claimed,  as  she  always  had,  that  she  was  looking 
after  the  interests  of  the  Christian  subjects  of  the  Sultan. 

[6.]  Now  this  is  certainly  a  good,  charitable,  and  commenda- 
ble purpose,  but  it  is  certain  that  there  was  a  deeper  motive 
than  this,  which  made  Russia  so  anxious  to  interfere  with  Tur- 
key, namely,  '  Russia  wanted  control  of  Constantinople.' 

[7.]  Beaconsfield  understood  this  to  be  Russia's  object,  and 
he  immediately  ordered  troops  to  be  placed  under  arms,  ready 
to  attack  Russia  at  any  moment ;  and  he  told  Russia  that  if 
she  advanced  further  than  Adrianople  he  would  consider  it  a 
casus  belli. 

[8.]  Beaconsfield  wanted  to  hold  a  conference  of  the  Great 
Powers  of  Europe,  whose  decision  concerning  Turkey  should 
be  final.  But  Russia  would  not  agree  to  any  such  treaty  unless 
certain  agreements,  which  were  favorable  to  Russia,  made 
about  a  year  before,  should  be  adhered  to.  Beaconsfield,  on 
the  other  hand,  would  not  listen  to  Russia's  demand,  and  for  a 
time,  it  seemed  as  though  war  was  certain.  But  by  a  private 
consultation  with  Russia,  Beaconsfield  got  Russia  to  agree  to  a 
treaty  at  Berlin. 

[9.]  At  this  treaty  Russia  gained  nothing,  owing,  no  doubt,  to 
Beaconsfield's  good  work.  Russia  would  not  be  allowed  to 
have  warships  in  the  Black  Sea,  and  the  Straits  should  be  open 
to  trading  vessels.  Let  us  consider  a  moment,  what  would 
have  been  the  result,  had  Russia  obtained  command  of  Con- 
stantinople. 

[10.]  Lord  Beaconsfield  once  said  :  'Constantinople  is  the 
Key  of  the  East.'  If  Russia  had  power  over  Constantinople, 
she  would  have  entire  command  of  the  Black  Sea,  and  also 
command  of  the  way  to  India ;  and  she  would,  in  time,  take 
command  of  India,  which  is  a  fertile  country,  and  therefore  of 
greatest  advantage  to  an  European  country. 


1 84  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

[n.]  England  owned  India,  and  depended  on  it  for  many 
products,  and  Beaconsfield  saw  that  if  Russia  once  obtained 
command  of  Constantinople  England's  chances  to  keep  India 
would  be  very  small. 

[ 1 2 .]  Beaconsfield  obtained  the  island  of  Cyprus  as  a  military 
station,  and  this  was  a  gain  for  which  England  cannot  tco 
highly  praise  Beaconsfield.  From  its  geographical  situation 
it  is  clear  that  it  commands  the  territory  which  was  most 
important  to  England.  From  it  England  has  control  of  the 
Suez  Canal,  the  passage  to  India,  which  is  certainly  of  greatest 
importance  to  England. 

[13.]  Had  Russia  been  allowed  to  enter  Constantinople  she 
would  virtually  have  had  command  of  all  Europe,  and  this 
would  have  been  a  most  undesirable  state  of  affairs.  Every- 
body knows  what  Russian  government  is,  and  to  think  that  it 
should  be  the  principal  power  in  Europe,  can  but  make  one's 
blood  run  cold. 

[14.]  The  treaty  at  Berlin  roused  all  Europe  against  Russia. 
The  Powers  of  Europe  now  saw  what  a  danger  Russia  was, 
and  what  mischief  she  could  do  if  Turkey  was  in  her  power, 
and  they  therefore  were  ready  to  unite  against  Russia  at  any 
time. 

[15.]  I  admit  that  the  treaty  did  not  settle  the  question  per- 
manently, but  it  was  the  best  thing  which  could  have  been 
done,  for  by  it  Russia  was  no  nearer  to  Constantinople,  and 
England  had  obtained  the  island  of  Cyprus  as  a  military 
station. 

[16.]  It  is  argued  that  it  was  a  disgrace  for  Beaconsfield  to 
take  the  part  of  such  a  depraved,  barbaric  country  as  Turkey ; 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  such  arguments  should  be  left  out  of  a 
question  of  this  kind.  Beaconsfield  did  take  the  part  of  a 
1  barbaric '  country,  but  it  was  the  salvation  of  not  only  Eng- 
land but  of  all  Europe.  Perhaps  he  felt  that  by  taking  Tur- 
key's part  England  could  gain  influence  in  Turkey  and  prevent 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  185 

the  misrule  which  existed  in  Turkey.  But  we  must  leave  sen- 
timent out  of  this  question.  Beaconsfield  thought  that  a  treaty 
was  the  best  thing,  and  therefore  he  asked  for  one ;  and  it  was 
the  best  policy.  If  any  one  wants  to  deny  that  Beaconsfield's 
policy  was  not  for  the  best  interests  of  England,  let  him  offer  a 
plan  which  Beaconsfield  ought  to  have  followed.  Perhaps 
such  a  person  will  say  that  England  ought  to  have  bought 
Constantinople  from  Russia,  but  this  is  absurd,  for  Russia 
would  never  have  thought  of  allowing  England  to  enter  Con- 
stantinople, for  any  sum.  And  to  sell  Constantinople  to 
Russia  would  have  been  anything  but  advantageous  to  Eng- 
land, as  shown  above.  The  only  remaining  course  would  have 
been  a  war  between  England  and  Russia.  This,  no  doubt, 
would  have  settled  the  matter.  But  what  an  awful  thing  would 
war  have  been  !  Do  we  not  always  hear,  '  Let  arms  alone  when 
they  are  not  needed  '  ? 

[17.]  A  war  between  these  two  countries  would  have  resulted 
in  terrible  loss  of  life,  and  tremendous  expense  ;  and  it  might 
have  lasted  for  years  and  years.  After  considering  these  argu- 
ments carefully,  I  question  whether  any  one  can  deny  that 
Beaconsfield's  course  was  advantageous  to  England. 

[  18.]  When  Beaconsfield  returned  to  England  he  was  received 
with  applause  and  welcomed  as  a  benefactor  to  his  country. 
The  Queen  herself  approved  most  heartily  his  policy." 

HOW    THE    ASSERTIVENESS    OF    THIS    FORENSIC    MIGHT    BE 
REMOVED. 

Any  careful  reader  of  this  so-called  forensic  will  see 
at  once  that  the  writer  has  not  analyzed  his  topic  care- 
fully, and  therefore  confusedly  mingles  introductory  and 
argumentative  matter,  treating  about  equally  all  the  ideas 
he  advances.  Emphasizing  the  important  ideas,  subordi- 
nation of  what  is  of  secondary  rank,  he  does  not  under- 


186  ARGUMENTATION. 

stand.  What,  however,  is  most  interesting  in  this 
forensic  at  the  moment  is  that  it  is  a  succession  of 
unqualified  affirmations,  of  assertions,  which  the  writer 
apparently  expects  a  reader  to  accept  on  his  authority. 
But,  since  his  lack  of  analysis  shows  that  he  does  not 
understand  a  fundamental  division  of  Argumentation, 
can  a  reader  assume  that  he  is  entirely  trustworthy  in 
his  management  of  another  great  division.  Evidence? 
Hardly, 

In  a  topic  like  that  which  the  writer  of  the  forensic 
treats,  the  origin  of  the  question,  the  causes  for  the  war, 
will  very  probably  determine  the  treatment  to  be  given 
the  case.  Therefore,  a  cautious  reader  will,  in  the  first 
two  paragraphs  of  the  forensic,  ask  to  be  made  sure  that 
the  statements  as  to  the  origin  of  the  war  and  the  course 
of  affairs  up  to  the  time  when  Beaconsfield  took  part  in 
them  are  not  in  any  particular  open  to  dispute.  This  the 
writer  could  readily  do  by  stating  in  foot-notes  the 
sources  of  his  information  and  by  pointing  out  that  arti- 
cles which  draw  entirely  different  conclusions  as  to  the 
advantageousness  of  Lord  Beaconsfield's  conduct  agree 
as  to  these  details  of  the  origin  of  the  question.  Clearly, 
then,  at  the  very  outset  of  this  forensic,  a  careful  reader 
will  call  for  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  the  statements 
made.  If,  then,  a  revision  of  this  forensic  were  attempted, 
the  introductory  matter  when  gathered  together  from 
the  different  paragraphs  should  rest  on  a  basis  of  careful 
footnotes  stating  the  sources  of  the  information. 

In  paragraph  3  the  writer  makes  a  complicated  asser- 
tion, —  that  Beaconsfield  recognized  that  Russia  wanted  to 
get  Turkey  into  her  power,  and  thereby  Constantinople, 
in  order  to  control  the  Black  Sea.     A  keen  reader  will 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  187 

at  once  see  that  this  assertion  must  be  one  of  the  vital 
issues  in  the  case.  Evidently  this  is  either  the  only 
reason,  or,  as  we  shall  see,  one  of  the  reasons  urged  in 
defense  of  the  conduct  of  Lord  Beaconsfield.  Just  what 
his  conduct  was  should  have  been  stated  before  this 
excuse,  or  reason  for  it,  was  given ;  but  the  careless 
writer  gives  it  only  bit  by  bit  in  the  succeeding  para- 
graphs. A  reader  sees  what  it  was  only  as  he  finishes 
reading  the  forensic.  But  Russia  did  not  admit  the  truth 
of  the  assertion  quoted.  She  says,  as  the  writer  admits, 
that  "  she  was  looking  after  the  interests  of  the  Christian 
subjects  of  the  Sultan."  Here  is  assertion  against  asser- 
tion. When  a  reader  can  see  which  is  the  correct 
statement,  he  will  be  well  on  the  way  to  a  conclusion  as 
to  the  whole  question.  He  needs,  then,  to  know  (i)  why 
the  writer  is  so  sure  of  what  he  implies,  that  the  exclusion 
of  England  from  the  Black  Sea  would  be  disadvantageous 
(for  not  all  readers,  indeed  very  few,  are  likely  to  know 
much  of  England's  maritime  interests),  and  (2)  how 
he  knows  so  well  that  Russia  was  (a)  scheming  to  get 
control  of  Constantinople,  (b)  in  order  to  control  the  Black 
Sea,  and  (3)  that  Beaconsfield  acted  as  he  did  because 
he  saw  all  this  clearly.  Here,  in  the  contents  of  one 
sentence,  work  enough  for  a  forensic  is  mapped  out  for 
the  writer.  He,  however,  satisfies  himself  with  saying 
over  and  over  that  these  statements  and  others  in  regard 
to  new  details  of  Beaconsfield's  conduct  which  he  adds 
are  true.     Evidence  he  does  not  give. 

The  statement  that  the  exclusion  of  England  and  the 
other  countries  from  the  Black  Sea  would  be  disadvan- 
tageous to  England  should  be  proved  true  by  quotations 
as    to    the    grain    trade    of    England    with    Southeastern 


188  ARGUMENTATION. 

Russia,  figures  as  to  its  extent;  quotations  and  brief 
summaries  of  the  evidence  of  competent  men  as  to  the 
danger  to  British  India  if  Russia  controlled  the  Black 
Sea  and  could  transport  her  troops  unmolested  to  the 
Asian  shore.  The  statement  that  Russia  was  scheming 
to  get  control  of  Constantinople  should  be  proved  true  by 
an  examination  of  any  parts  of  her  past  history,  any  of  her 
acts  in  the  matter  under  discussion,  any  testimony  from 
unprejudiced  persons,  any  admissions  or  slips  on  the  part 
of  her  officials,  which  seem  to  point  to  this  conclusion. 
That  she  schemed  for  Constantinople  in  order  to  control 
the  Black  Sea  should  be  shown  by  a  map  to  prove  that 
whoever  holds  Constantinople  and  is  a  first-class  power 
can  close  at  will  the  Dardanelles;  and  by  testimony  from 
Russian,  English,  and  any  good  sources,  as  to  the  desir- 
ability for  Russia  of  excluding  the  English  from  the 
grain  trade  in  the  Black  Sea  and  gaining  an  easier  access 
to  British  India.  That  Beaconsfield  saw  all  this  —  the 
desires  of  Russia  and  their  causes  —  should  be  shown  by 
quoting  his  own  words  and  citing  acts  of  his  which  make 
his  words  good.  Evidently,  then?/  one  sentence  of  the 
writer's  when  properly  treated  will  grow  into  a  forensic. 

The  rest  of  the  work  illustrates  the  same  fault,  reckless 
assertiveness  that  does  not  prove  anything  to  be  true. 
Paragraph  4  should  be  given  a  footnote  referring  to  the 
source  of  the  writer's  information  in  order  that  a  reader, 
if  he  wishes,  may  look  up  further  details  of  the  move- 
ments of  the  Russians.  Paragraph  5  needs  references, 
for  the  statement  in  it  is,  as  has  been  seen  above,  very 
important.  It  would  be  even  better  to  cite  some  authori- 
tative Russian  statement  that  this  was  the  cause  of 
Russia's    conduct.      In    paragraph    6    the    writer    simply 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  189 

reasserts  what  he  said  in  paragraph  3,  and  a  reader  sees 
that  he  was  right  in  thinking  the  statement  fundamental 
in  the  argument.  Paragraphs  7,  8,  and  9,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  words,  "owing,  no  doubt,  to  Beaconsfield's 
good  work,"  add  details  which  really  belong  in  the  intro- 
duction. The  clause  mentioned  should,  of  course,  have 
been  reserved  for  the  discussion  itself.  The  paragraphs 
need,  like  paragraphs  1  and  2,  references  to  articles  on 
both  sides,  in  order  that  a  reader  may  see  they  are  undis- 
puted. Paragraphs  10,  II,  and  12  take  a  reader  into 
argumentative  matter,  and  therefore  need  evidential  sup- 
port. In  1 1  the  writer  returns  to  the  idea  of  the  Black 
Sea,  meeting  the  reason  for  Russia's  desire  to  control 
Constantinople,  and  thereby  the  Black  Sea,  which  came 
out  in  the  discussion  above  of  the  important  assertion  of 
paragraph  3,  namely,  Russia's  desire  to  get  into  India. 
A  careful  reader  will  prefer  not  to  be  told  that  Lord 
Beaconsfield,  whose  conduct  is  in  question,  said:  "Con- 
stantinople is  the  Key  of  the  East,"  but  to  be  shown  why 
this  saying  is  true.  The  next  assertion,  that  if  Russia 
held  Constantinople  she  would  control  the  Black  Sea,  has 
already  been  considered,  and,  if  a  reader  follows  the  loose 
arrangement  of  this  writer,  has  been  proved  true.  The 
next  assertion,  that  Russia,  in  control  of  the  Black  Sea, 
would  command  the  way  to  India,  has  been  partly  con- 
sidered in  what  has  been  said  of  the  ease  with  which  she 
could  place  troops  in  Asian  territory.  A  more  careful 
workman  than  this  writer  would  also  show  the  effect  on 
English  access  to  the  Suez  Canal  if  Constantinople  were 
in  the  hands  of  Russia.  The  two  statements  in  para- 
graph 1 1  should  be  part  of  the  proof  of  the  third  assertion 
of  paragraph  10.     To  be  convincing,  the  first  needs  illus- 


190  ARGUMENTATION. 

trations  to  show  what  kind  of  products  indispensable  to 
England  India  alone  offers  her;  the  second  needs  explana- 
tion of  Russia's  ambitions  in  regard  to  India,  of  affairs 
in  India,  of  the  boundaries  of  India  nearest  Russia,  and 
the  conditions  of  the  people  living  near  them. 

Paragraph  1 2  adds  a  new  introductory  idea,  —  that 
Beaconsfield  gained  Cyprus  for  England.  The  assertions 
in  regard  to  the  value  of  the  island  made  in  the  second 
and  the  third  sentences  could  best  be  proved  true  by  a 
map  and  a  little  explanation.  This  paragraph  really  con- 
nects itself  in  thought  with  the  third  assertion  of  para- 
graph 10,  —  that  by  control  of  Constantinople  Russia 
would  command  the  way  to  India,  —  for  both  consider  the 
Suez  Canal.  Paragraph  13  adds  a  new  assertion  that  must 
be  proved  true  by  the  map  already  used  and  by  an  expla- 
nation of  the  relation  to  Constantinople  and  the  dominant 
power  in  it  of  the  other  sections  of  Turkey  and  of  adjacent 
countries.  The  writer  simply  shudders  at  what  he  thinks 
would  happen  if  Russia  were  in  control  of  Europe,  does 
not  show  that  she  would  be  in  control,  or  that  he  has  a 
cause  to  shudder.  Paragraph  14,  if  it  is  to  have  any  force, 
must  bring  out  that  all  Europe  was  roused,  must  show 
what  the  different  countries  did  or  said  through  their 
representatives.  Treated  in  this  way,  it  would  have 
climactic  force  as  showing  that  the  representatives  of  the 
European  nations  agreed  with  Beaconsfield.  Treated  as  I 
the  writer  treats  it,  the  paragraph  gives  simply  a  vague 
reference  to  important  evidence  which  should  be  produced. 
Paragraph  1 5  adds  a  qualification  in  its  first  line,  and 
would  come  in  better,  therefore,  at  the  end  of  the  intro- 
duction, when  the  writer  is  narrowing  the  question.  By 
that  arrangement  the  last  two  lines  would  become  part 
of  the  statement  to  be  proved  true  in  the  forensic. 


AR  G  UMEN  TA  TION.  191 

In  paragraph  16  the  writer  attempts  to  take  up  some 
of  the  arguments  of  those  opposed  to  his  views.  Really, 
all  that  he  has  been  saying  is  an  answer  to  the  first  objec- 
tion he  names.  Therefore  this  objection  would  come  in 
better  at  the  beginning,  where  it  could  be  answered  by 
all  that  has  been  discussed.  The  end  of  his  first  sentence 
in  this  paragraph  dodges  the  question.  The  second 
sentence  admits  what  has  just  been  pointed  out,  that  all 
that  has  preceded  is  an  answer  to  this  objection.  The 
writer  next  turns  to  a  qualified  assertion  —  a  useless 
statement  as  it  stands.  If  he  can  prove  that  Beacons- 
field  hoped  to  prevent  or  to  check  misrule  in  Turkey,  he 
should  do  so,  though  not  here  but  early  in  his  work,  for 
the  effect  on  Turkey  is  less  important  than  the  effect  on 
England  and  all  Europe  —  what  he  has  been  discussing. 
If  he  cannot  prove  this,  he  might  better  say  nothing  about 
it.  The  "  perhaps,"  then,  or  the  whole  sentence,  should 
be  dropped.  If  the  sentence,  modified,  stands,  proof  of 
its  truth  should  be  brought  forward.  The  next  two 
sentences  very  clumsily  raise  the  objection  that  the  diffi- 
culty could  have  been  met  better  by  some  other  means 
than  a  treaty.  The  second  of  these  sentences  is  too 
vacuous  to  need  comment.  The  first  suggestion  as  to 
the  sale  of  Constantinople  can  hardly  be  taken  seriously, 
and  seems  a  concoction  of  the  writer's  fertile  brain.  The 
second  very  important  suggestion  as  to  war  the  writer 
slurs  with  a  generality,  and  then  passes,  in  paragraph 
1 7,  to  a  broadly  assertive  suggestion  of  the  ways  in  which 
the  undesirability  of  such  a  war  might  be  shown.  It 
should  have  been  his  work  to  point  out  carefully,  by  the 
evidence  of  careful  exposition  and  convincing  logic,  why 
the  treaty  was  far  better  than  war.     If  the  probable  loss 


192  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

of  life,  —  judged  by  the  Crimean  war,  for  instance,  —  the 
probable  expense,  the  probable  duration  of  such  a  contest 
were  briefly  shown,  this  paragraph  would  have  probative 
value.  Paragraph  18  ends  the  work,  not  with  a  clear 
statement  of  what  has  been  proved,  but  with  the  idea 
that  Beaconsfield's  countrymen  hailed  him  as  a  benefactor. 
It  is  not  true  that  all  did.  Here  is  a  questionable  asser- 
tion at  the  very  end  of  the  work. 

In  this  forensic,  then,  there  is  assertion  on  assertion, 
not  one  bit  of  well-handled  proof.  The  detailed  examina- 
tion of  this  so-called  argument  should  make  clear  how 
ineffective,  how  weak  and  unconvincing,  assertion  is. 

Proper  Support  of  Assertion. 

The  way  in  which  assertions  should  be  supported  the 
following  illustrations  show.  Adam  Smith,  writing  in  his 
Wealth  of  Nations  on  the  advantages  of  division  of  labor, 
makes  this  assertion  :  — 

"  The  greatest  improvement  in  the  productive  powers  of 
labor,  and  the  greater  skill,  dexterity,  and  judgment  with  which 
it  is  anywhere  directed  and  applied,  seem  to  have  been  the 
effects  of  division  of  labor." 

He  was,  however,  too  wise  to  let  this  stand  unsupported, 
and  he  added,  in  order  to  make  clear  the  truth  of  his 
statement :  — 

"  To  take  an  example,  therefore,  from  a  very  trifling  manu- 
facture, but  one  in  which  the  division  of  labor  has  been  very 
often  taken  notice  of,  the  trade  of  the  pin-maker ;  a  workman 
not  educated  to  this  business  (which  the  division  of  labor  has 
rendered  a  distinct  trade),  nor  acquainted  with  the  use  of  the 
machinery  employed  in  it  (to  the  invention  of  which  the  same 
division  of  labor  has  probably  given  occasion),  could  scarce, 


A  R  G  U ME  NT  A  TION.  193 

perhaps,  with  the  utmost  industry,  make  one  pin  a  day,  and 
certainly  could  not  make  twenty.  But  in  the  way  in  which 
this  business  is  now  carried  on,  not  only  the  whole  work  is  a 
peculiar  trade,  but  it  is  divided  into  a  number  of  branches,  of 
which  the  greater  part  are  likewise  peculiar  trades.  One  man 
draws  out  the  wire,  another  straightens  it,  a  third  cuts  it,  a  fourth 
points  it,  a  fifth  grinds  it  at  the  top  for  receiving  the  head  :  to 
make  the  head  requires  two  or  three  distinct  operations  ;  to 
put  it  on  is  a  peculiar  business ;  to  whiten  the  pins  is  another  ; 
it  is  even  a  trade  by  itself  to  put  them  into  the  paper ;  and  the 
important  business  of  making  a  pin  is,  in  this  manner,  divided 
into  about  eighteen  distinct  operations,  which  in  some  manu- 
factories are  all  performed  by  distinct  hands,  though  in  others 
the  same  man  will  perform  two  or  three  of  them.  I  have  seen 
a  small  manufactory  of  this  kind  where  ten  men  only  were  em- 
ployed, and  where  some  of  them  consequently  performed  two 
or  three  distinct  operations.  But  though  they  were  very  poor, 
and  therefore  but  indifferently  accommodated  with  the  neces- 
sary machinery,  they  could,  when  they  exerted  themselves,  make 
among  them  about  twelve  pounds  of  pins  in  a  day.  There 
are  in  a  pound  upwards  of  four  thousand  pins  of  a  middling 
size.  Those  ten  persons,  therefore,  could  make  among  them 
upwards  of  forty-eight  thousand  pins  in  a  day.  Each  person, 
therefore,  making  a  tenth  part  of  forty-eight  thousand  pins, 
might  be  considered  as  making  four  thousand  eight  hundred 
pins  in  a  day.  But  if  they  had  all  wrought  separately  and  inde- 
pendently, and  without  any  of  them  having  been  educated  to 
this  particular  business,  they  certainly  could  not  each  of  them 
have  made  twenty,  perhaps  not  one  pin  in  a  day;  that  is, 
certainly  not  the  two  hundred  and  fortieth,  perhaps  not  the 
four  thousand  eight  hundredth  part  of  what  they  are  at 
present  capable  of  performing,  in  consequence  of  a  proper 
division  and  combination  of  their  different  operations."  1 

1  Wealth    of  Nations.      The  Division   of  Labor.     Specimens  of  Expo- 
sition.    H.  Lamont.     pp.  105-107.     H.  Holt  &  Co.,  1894. 


194  ARGUMENTATION. 

Macaulay,  in  his  famous  review  of  Croker's  Bos  well's 
Johnson,  said:  — 

"  Nothing  in  the  work  has  astonished  us  so  much  as  the 
ignorance  or  the  carelessness  of  Mr.  Croker  with  respect  to 
facts  and  dates.  Many  of  his  blunders  are  such  as  we  should 
be  surprised  to  hear  any  well-educated  gentleman  commit,  even 
in  conversation." 

Macaulay  next  takes  up  many  statements  of  Croker, 
and  by  considering  each  justifies  the  assertions  made 
above.     Here  is  an  example  of  his  method:  — 

4 

"  In  one  place,  Mr.  Croker  says  that  at  the  commencement 
of  the  intimacy  between  Dr.  Johnson  and  Mrs.  Thrale,  in  1765, 
the  lady  was  twenty-five  years  old.1  In  other  places  he  says 
that  Mrs.  Thrale's  thirty-fifth  year  coincided  with  Johnson's 
seventieth.  Johnson  was  born  in  1709.  If,  therefore,  Mrs. 
Thrale's  thirty-fifth  year  coincided  with  Johnson's  seventieth, 
she  could  have  been  only  twenty-one  years  old  in  1765.  This 
is  not  all.  Mr.  Croker,  in  another  place,  assigns  the  year  1777 
as  the  date  of  the  complimentary  lines  which  Johnson  made  on 
Mrs.  Thrale's  thirty-fifth  birthday.  If  this  date  be  correct,  Mrs. 
Thrale  must  have  been  born  in  1742,  and  could  have  been 
only  twenty-three  when  her  acquaintance  with  Johnson  com- 
menced. Mr.  Croker,  therefore,  gives  us  three  different  state- 
ments as  to  her  age.     Two  of  the  three  must  be  incorrect."  2 

Edmund  Burke,  in  his  speech  on  Conciliation  with  the 
American  Colonies,  made  this  assertion:  — 

"  But  I  confess  .  .  .  my  opinion  is  much  more  in  favor  of 
prudent  management  than  of  force ;  considering  force  not  as 

1  Macaulay  carefully  gives  references  to  the  places  in  Croker's  edition 
where  the  misstatements  cited  occur. 

2  Essays  on  Croker's  Edition  of  BosweWs  Life  of  fohnson,  p.  334. 
H.  Holt  &  Co.,  1893. 


A  KG  UMENTA  TION.  195 

an  odious  but  a  feeble  instrument  for  preserving  a  people  so 
numerous,  so  active,  so  growing,  so  spirited  as  this,  in  a  profit- 
able and  subordinate  connection  to  us." 

This  assertion  he  supports  with  the  following  explana- 
tion of  his  reasons  for  making  it :  — 

"  First,  Sir,  permit  me  to  observe,  that  the  use  of  force  alone 
is  but  temporary.  It  may  subdue  for  a  moment ;  but  it  does 
not  remove  the  necessity  of  subduing  again  :  and  a  nation  is 
not  governed  which  is  perpetually  to  be  conquered. 

"  My  next  objection  is  its  uncertainty.  Terror  is  not  always 
the  effect  of  force ;  and  an  armament  is  not  a  victory.  If  you 
do  not  succeed,  you  are  without  resource :  for,  conciliation 
failing,  force  remains ;  but  force  failing,  no  further  hope  of 
reconciliation  is  left.  Power  and  authority  are  sometimes 
bought  by  kindness  ;  but  they  can  never  be  begged  as  alms 
by  an  impoverished  and  defeated  violence. 

"  A  further  objection  is,  that  you  impair  the  object  by  your 
endeavors  to  preserve  it.  The  thing  you  fought  for  is  not  the 
thing  you  recover ;  but  depreciated,  sunk,  wasted,  and  con- 
sumed in  the  contest."  1 

Here  is  an  assertion  from  the  prospectus  of  a  building 
company  :  — 

"After  deducting  ten  per  cent  from  the  estimated  income 
and  paying  all  taxes  and  expenses  of  every  nature,  the  net 
rentals  are  sufficient  to  take  care  of  the  interest  on  the  mort- 
gage, and  pay  dividends  of  five  dollars  per  share,  leaving  a 
surplus  of  eleven  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy  dollars, 
or  nearly  sixteen  per  cent  of  the  gross  income." 

The  assertion  is  supported  by  the  following  figures  :  — 

1  On  Conciliation  with  the  American  Colonies.  Edmund  Burke. 
Political  Orations.     Camelot  Series,  pp.  65,  66.     W.Jscjitt,.  London. 

V>V     OF  THE      °> 


196  ARGUMENTATION. 


Income. 


Estimated  rentals $74>3°° 

Deduct  ten  per  cent  for  vacancies      .     .     .  7>43° 

Net  rentals $66,870 

Estimated  expenses,  including  taxes  .     .     .  19,000 


$47,870 

Interest  on  $400,000  mortgage  at 

four  per  cent  per  annum      .     .     $16,000 

Dividend   $5  per  share  on   4,000 

shares 20,000 

$36,000 


$11,870 


II.     KINDS   OF   EVIDENCE. 

A  careful  reader  will  have  noticed  that  the  evidence 
used  in  these  illustrations  is  of  different  kinds.  The 
assertion  of  Adam  Smith  is  proved  true  by  careful  state- 
ment of  an  illustration.  The  second  is  proved  correct  by 
an  examination  of  the  words  of  Croker,  which  shows 
their  contradictoriness  and  absurdity.  The  third  rests 
for  its  proof  on  a  series  of  propositions  which  are  so  self- 
evident,  or  rest  on  facts  so  generally  admitted,  that  any 
reader  must  grant  their  truth.  The  fourth  statement  is 
proved  correct  by  means  of  figures.  Plainly,  then,  there 
are  different  kinds  of  evidence  —  very  many,  probably, 
for  but  a  few  of  an  infinity  of  assertions  have  been 
quoted.  Evidently,  then,  he  who  would  argue  well  must 
not  only  recognize  that  evidence  is  needed  in  all  argu- 
mentation, but  must  learn  what  kinds  of  evidence  there 
are. 


ARGUMENTA  T10N.  197 

Evidence  here  not  Limited  as  it  is  in  Courts. 

Pages  8-13,  of  Chapter  I,  pointed  out  that  courts  of 
law  limit  strictly  the  evidence  to  be  used  in  them.  A 
student  of  Argumentation,  except  when  he  is  asked  to 
take  the  legal  point  of  view  in  treating  his  case,  should 
clearly  understand  that  he  is  bound  by  none  of  these 
laws  of  evidence  of  the  courts.  The  reasons  for  this  the 
pages  just  referred  to  explained  at  length,  and  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  sets  forth  with  great  clearness:  — 

"  No  reasonable  man,  who,  for  his  own  satisfaction  wished 
to  ascertain  what  was  the  conduct  of  the  dock  laborers  during 
the  recent  strike,  what  were  their  motives  in  leaving  their  work, 
and  how  far,  by  force  or  otherwise,  they  intimidated  the  so- 
called  'black-legs,'  would  ever  tie  his  hands  by  any  rules  of 
evidence  "  [that  is,  rules  of  the  courts].  "  Our  inquirer  would 
listen  to  everything  said  by  persons  who  had,  or  were  likely  to 
have,  direct  or  indirect  knowledge  of  what  took  place  before  or 
during  the  strike  ;  he  would  give  ear  to  general  report ;  and, 
though,  if  he  understood  his  work,  he  would  in  his  own  mind 
distinguish  carefully  between  the  probative  value  of  different 
kinds  of  statements,  he  would  certainly  not  reject  information 
which  weighed  upon  his  judgment,  because  it  was  only  sec- 
ondary or  hearsay  evidence.  A  judge,  on  the  other  hand, 
occupied  in  trying  laborers  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy  to  prevent 
'  black-legs '  from  entering  into  the  employment  of  the  Dock 
Company,  would  reject  much  evidence  which  our  investigator 
would  receive.  He  would  on  principle  shut  his  ears  to  the 
effect  of  certain  alleged  facts ;  he  would  reject  all  hearsay ;  he 
would  not  pay  attention  to  common  report ;  he  would  in  many 
cases  decline  to  consider  any  but  the  best  evidence. 

"  To  point  out  the  distinction  between  ordinary  inquiry  and 
judicial  procedure  does  not  involve  the  necessity  for  censuring 


198  ARG  UMENTA  TIOJV. 

either  the  common-sense  customs  of  every-day  life,  or  the  rules 
of  evidence  adopted  by  the  Courts.  The  objects  of  ordinary 
investigation  and  of  a  judicial  inquiry  are  different.  It  is  natural, 
therefore,  that  each  should  be  conducted  on  somewhat  different 
principles.  In  the  case,  for  example,  of  research  into  a  matter  of 
history,  the  investigator's  sole  object  is  to  get  as  near  the  truth 
as  he  can.  His  end  is  knowledge.  It  is,  therefore,  better  that 
he  should  run  some  risk  of  error  than  that  he  should  close  his 
eyes  to  evidence  which,  though  it  may  occasionally  mislead 
him,  holds  out  the  promise  of  guiding  him,  if  not  to  certain, 
yet  to  highly  probable,  conclusions.  A  judge's  object,  in  the 
conduct  of  a  criminal  trial  (as,  indeed,  to  a  certain  extent,  in 
the  conduct  of  any  trial)  is  different.  His  aim  is  to  come  to  a 
conclusion  —  then  and  then  only — when  the  conclusion  is 
certain  enough  to  justify  the  pronouncing  of  a  decision.  As 
against  the  prisoner,  at  any  rate,  he  wishes  in  effect  to  come  to 
no  conclusion  at  all  —  or  rather,  in  England,  to  prevent  the  jury 
from  coming  to  any  conclusion  at  all  —  unless  it  be  one  estab- 
lished with  what,  for  practical  purposes,  we  may  call  certainty. 
Hence,  he  deliberately  excludes  from  his  view  considerations 
which,  though  valuable  as  a  guide  to  probability,  involve  appre- 
ciable risk  of  error.  He  is,  moreover,  compelled  to  reject 
evidence  of  certain  descriptions,  not  so  much  because  it  would 
lead  to  error  as  regards  the  particular  case  which  is  before  the 
Court,  as  because  the  admission  of  it  would,  as  a  general  rule, 
prevent  the  production  of  a  better  kind  of  evidence.  This  is 
the  main  reason  why  a  witness  is  not  generally  allowed  to  give 
verbal  evidence  as  to  the  contents  of  a  written  document."  1 

Common  Divisions  of  Evidence. 

The  broad  field  of  evidence   has  been   divided   accord- 
ing to  different   plans,  and  the   divisions   named.     It  is 

1  The  Verdict,  A.  V.  Dicey,  Q.  C,  pp.  12,  13.     Cassell  &  Co.,  1890. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  199 

doubtless  convenient  for  a  student  of  Argumentation  to 
know  what  are  the  common  divisions  made,  but  he  need 
not  bother  himself  greatly  with  their  nomenclature,  pro- 
vided he  understands  clearly  what  evidence  is,  has  im- 
pressed on  his  mind  ineradicably  the  vital  need  of  it  in 
Argumentation,  and  knows  how  to  distinguish  good  from 
bad  evidence,  a  matter  to  be  explained  a  little  later. 

(a)  Testimonial  and  Circumstantial  Evidence.  —  A  di- 
vision of  evidence  used  very  effectively  by  Professor 
Huxley  in  the  first  of  his  three  lectures  on  evolution  is 
into  testimonial  and  circumstantial  evidence. 

"  By  testimonial  evidence  I  mean  human  testimony; l  and  by 
circumstantial  evidence  I  mean  evidence  which  is  not  human 
testimony.  .  .  .  Suppose  that  a  man  tells  you  that  he  saw  a 
person  strike  another  and  kill  him  ;  that  is  testimonial  evidence 
of  the  murder.  But  it  is  possible  to  have  circumstantial  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  of  a  murder ;  that  is  to  say,  you  may  find  a 
man  dying  with  a  wound  upon  his  head  having  exactly  the 
form  and  character  of  the  wound  which  is  made  by  an  axe,  and, 
with  due  care  in  taking  surrounding  circumstances  into  account, 
you  may  conclude  with  the  utmost  certainty  that  the  man  has 
been  murdered ;  that  his  death  is  the  consequence  of  a  blow 
inflicted  by  another  man  with  that  implement."  2 

(b)  Direct  ana  Indirect  Evidence.  —  Plainly,  human  testi- 
mony may  state  either  of  two  things:  that  the  witness 
saw  the  murder  committed,  or  that  for  some  reason  other 
than  direct  observation  of  the  deed,  he  believes  that  it 
was  committed.     In  both  cases  there  is  human  testimony, 

1  This,  of  course,  includes  the  testimony  of  men  living  or  dead,  by  word 
of  mouth  or  in  books  or  documents. 

2  Lectures  on  Evolution.  Huxley.  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern) 
pp.  70,  71. 


200  A  RGUMENTA  TION. 

but  in  one  case  it  is  direct  testimony  as  to  the  deed,  in 
the  other  indirect.  It  must  be  evident  that  in  the  second 
case  the  judgment  rests  on  circumstances  from  which  the 
witness  draws  his  conclusion,  —  is  really  circumstantial 
evidence.  Perhaps,  then,  a  better  division  of  evidence  is 
the  more  common  one  —  into  direct  and  indirect  (or 
circumstantial). 

"  The  two  are  so  interdependent,  that  it  is  only  by  extreme 
examples  that  we  can  dissociate  them.  All  direct  evidence 
must  be  sustained  by  circumstances,  whilst  all  circumstantial 
evidence  is  dependent  upon  direct  facts  as  stated  by  witnesses 
past  or  present. 

"  Let  me  give  you  an  example  of  each,  that  this  may  be  more 
clear  to  your  minds.  Let  us  suppose  that  several  boys  go  to  a 
pool  of  water  to  swim.  One  of  these  is  seen  by  his  companions 
to  dive  into  the  water,  and  he  does  not  arise.  His  death  is 
reported.  This  is  called  direct  evidence.  The  boy  was  seen 
to  drown,  you  are  told,  and  your  judgment  concedes  the  fact 
readily.  But  is  the  proposition  proved,  even  though  you  have 
these  several  witnesses  to  the  actual  drowning?  Let  us  see. 
The  authorities,  later,  drag  the  pool  and  find  a  body.  The 
body  is  taken  to  the  morgue,  and  the  keeper  there,  an  expert 
in  such  matters,  makes  the  startling  assertion  that  instead  of  a 
few  hours,  or  let  us  say  a  day,  the  body  must  have  been 
immersed  for  several  days.  This  is  circumstantial  evidence. 
The  keeper  has  no  positive  knowledge  that  this  particular  body 
has  been  under  water  so  long.  Still  he  has  seen  thousands  of 
bodies,  and  none  has  presented  such  an  appearance  after  so, 
short  an  interval.  How  shall  we  judge  between  such  conflict- 
ing evidence  ?  On  the  one  side  we  have  direct  evidence  which 
is  most  positive.  On  the  other  we  have  circumstantial  evidence 
which. is  equally  so.     Is  the  original  hypothesis  proven? 1    Does 

1  Students  of  Argumentation  are  warned  against  this  word.  "  Proved  " 
is  the  past  participle.  Except  in  the  verdict  "  not  proven,"  "  proven  "  has 
no  proper  use. 


A  R  G  UME  NrTA  TION.  201 

not  the  circumstantial  evidence  raise  a  doubt?  Certainly. 
Now  let  us  take  another  step.  The  witnesses  to  the  drowning 
are  called  again,  and  view  the  body,  and  now  among  ten  of 
them,  we  find  one  who  hesitates  in  his  identification.  At  once 
we  find  another  circumstance  wanting  in  substantiation  of  the 
original  claim.  Now  we  see,  that  all  that  was  really  proved 
was,  that  a  boy  was  drowned ;  and  not  at  all  that  it  was  this 
particular  boy  who  was  found.  But  is  it  proved  that  a  boy  was 
drowned  when  the  boys  were  in  swimming  ?  How  can  it  be  in 
the  absence  of  a  drowned  body  which  all  can  identify  as  their 
companion's  ?  Now  suppqse  that  at  the  last  hour,  the  original 
boy  turns  up  alive,  and  reports  that  he  had  been  washed  ashore 
down  the  stream,  and  subsequently  recovered.  We  find  that 
our  direct  evidence,  with  numerous  witnesses  to  the  actual  fact, 
was  entirely  misleading  after  all,  because  we  had  jumped  to  a 
conclusion,  without  duly  considering  the  attendant  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  So  it  is  always.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  positive  proof  which  does  not  depend  upon  circumstances. 
The  old  example  may  be  cited  briefly  again.  If  you  see  one 
man  shoot  at  another  and  see  the  other  fall  and  die,  can  you 
say  without  further  knowledge,  that  one  killed  the  other  with 
his  pistol  ?  If  you  do,  you  may  find  later  that  the  pistol  carried 
only  a  blank  cartridge,  and  that  the  man  died  of  fright. 

"  It  is  equally  true  of  circumstantial  evidence,  that  without 
some  direct  fact  upon  which  it  depends  it  is  worthless.  As  an 
example  of  this  I  may  as  well  save  your  time  by  introducing 
the  case  at  issue.  If  we  could  show  you  that  the  prisoner 
desired  the  death  of  this  girl ;  that  he  profited  by  her  death  ; 
.  .  .  that  she  died  under  circumstances  which  made  the  attend- 
ing physician  suspect  morphine  poisoning ;  that  as  soon  as  the 
suspicion  was  announced,  the  prisoner  mysteriously  disap- 
peared, and  remained  in  hiding  for  several  days  ;  that  he  had 
the  opportunity  to  administer  the  poison ;  that  he  understood 
the  working  of  the  drug ;  and  other  circumstances  of  a  similar 
nature,  the   argument  would  be   entirely  circumstantial.     All 


202  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

this  might  be  true  and  the  man  might  be  innocent.  But, 
selecting  from  this  array  of  suspicious  facts,  the  one  which 
indicates  morphine  as  the  drug  employed,  add  to  it  the  fact 
that  expert  chemists  actually  find  morphine  in  the  tissues  of 
the  body,  and  you  see,  gentlemen,  that  at  once  this  single  bit 
of  direct  evidence  gives  substantial  form  to  the  whole.  The 
circumstantial  is  strengthened  by  the  direct,  just  as  the 
direct  is  made  important  by  the  circumstantial.  The  mere 
finding  of  poison  in  a  body,  though  direct  evidence  as  to  the 
cause  of  death,  neither  convicts  the  assassin,  nor  even  posi- 
tively indicates  that  a  murder  has  been  committed.  The  poison 
might  have  reached  the  victim  by  accident.  But  consider  the 
attendant  circumstances,  and  then  we  see  that  a  definite  con- 
clusion is  inevitable.  It  is  from  the  circumstantial  evidence 
only  that  we  can  reach  the  true  meaning  of  what  direct  testi- 
mony teaches."  * 

Evidence,  then,  when  considered  with  regard  to  its 
source,  is  called  direct  and  indirect  (or  circumstantial). 

{c)  Another  Division  of  Evidence.  —  Another  division 
of  evidence,  in  the  past  a  good  deal  used  by  writers  on 
Rhetoric  and  Argumentation,  is  into  proof  from  Ante- 
cedent Probability,  Sign,  and  Example. 

/.  Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability.  —  The  Argu- 
ment from  Antecedent  Probability  tries  to  account  for 
something  that  is  assumed  to  be  true,  —  to  find  a  motive 
for  it.  When  the  writer  of  the  long  quotation  just  cited 
points  out  that  in  the  murder  case  he  is  discussing  it 
would  be  helpful  to  show  that  the  prisoner  desired  the 
death  of  the  girl,  that  he  profited  by  her  death,  he  suggests 
using  the  Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability.     That 

lA  Modern  Wizard.  Ottolengui,  chap.  XI,  pp.  171-176.  Some  slight 
changes,  for  greater  clearness,  have  been  made  in  the  quotation. 


A  KG  UMENTA  T10N.  203 

is,  he  first  assumes  that  there  has  been  a  murder,  and  then 
points  out  reasons,  motives,  for  it. 

This,  as  the  writer  himself  says,1  is  but  another  name 
for  a  kind  of  circumstantial,  or  indirect,  evidence,  for  the 
testimony  is  not  that  the  witness  saw  the  murder,  but  that 
because  of  certain  circumstances  known  to  him,  he  thinks 
that  if  it  took  place  here  is  a  cause  for  it. 

2.  The  Argument  from  Sign.  —  The  Argument  from 
Sign  "is  an  inference,  from  a  part  of  a  process,  object,  or 
fact,  of  the  presence  of  another  part,  or  of  the  whole,  —  is 
an  argument  from  an  effect  to  a  condition."2  That  is, 
when  the  keeper  of  the  morgue  said  that  the  body  in  his 
charge  had  been  in  the  water  more  than  a  day,  he  used 
the  state  of  the  body  as  an  Argument  from  Sign  of  the 
truth  of  his  words.  He  argued  from  the  effect  produced 
on  the  body  by  the  water  to  the  condition  of  long  im- 
mersion ;  from  the  part  of  the  process  which  he  saw,  he 
supplied  the  rest.  Note  that  this  Argument  from  Sign 
differs  from  the  Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability 
in  that  here  a  writer  does  not  assume  that  the  point  in 
question  is  true  and  then  find  a  reason  for  it,  if  true,  but 
seeks  at  once  to  see  if  it  is  true.  He  does  not  say  that 
what  he  points  to  as  a  sign  of  the  presence  of  the  result 
in  question  is  a  cause  of  it,  but  that  in  the  past  he  has 
noted  that  when  the  result  in  question  occurred  this  object 
or  fact  was  one  of  the  attending  circumstances.  The 
keeper  does  not  say  that  the  marks  on  the  body  caused 
the  body  to  be  three  days  in  the  water,  but  that,  whenever 

1  "  If  he  could  show  you  that  the' prisoner  desired  the  death  of  this  girl, 
that  he  profited  by  her  death,  ...  the  argument  would  be  entirely  cir- 
cumstantial." 

2  Elements  of  Logic,    Wm.  Wately.        Sheldon  &  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1869. 


204  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

that  result  has  occurred,  an  essential  attending  circum- 
stance has  been  a  condition  of  the  immersed  body  like  the 
condition  of  the  body  in  question.  When,  for  instance, 
to  use  an  old  illustration,  a  man  sees  the  barometer  falling, 
he  says,  "We  shall  have  bad  weather."  He  does  not 
mean  that  the  falling  of  the  barometer  is  a  cause  of  the 
bad  weather,  but  only  that  it  is  one  of  the  conditions 
attendant  upon  bad  weather,  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
process  called  bad  weather. 

Here  again  a  kind  of  evidence  already  known  to  the 
reader  is  simply  given  another  name.  In  the  first  case 
cited,  the  witness  does  not  testify  that  he  knows  this  is 
not  the  drowned  boy,  but  states  circumstances  which 
make  him  believe  that  this  is  not  the  boy's  body.  In 
the  second  case,  the  witness  does  not  testify  that  he  saw 
the  murder,  but  states  conditions  which  make  him  think 
that  murder  may  have  taken  place.  That  is,  his  testimony 
is  indirect,  or  circumstantial  evidence,  though  of  another 
kind  from  that  considered  under  Antecedent  Probability. 

J.  The  Argument  from  Example.  —  The  Argument  from 
Example  rests  on  the  idea  that  objects  which  resemble 
each  other  in  two  or  more  respects,  connected  with  the 
point  in  discussion,  will  resemble  each  other  in  this  par- 
ticular point.  That  is,  if  in  the  murder  case  which 
has  been  used  for  an  illustration,  the  lawyer  for  the 
prosecution  showed  that  two  or  more  circumstances  in 
the  case  are  the  same  as  two  or  more  circumstances  in  a 
past  murder  case,  the  details  of  which  are  known,  and 
that  in  the  past  case  these  were  inseparably  connected 
with  the  fact  of  murder,  he  may  argue  that  there  has  been 
murder  here.      Really  this  is   but  an  intensified  form  of 


A  KG  U ME  NT  A  TION  205 

the  Argument  from  Sign.  Like  that,  the  Argument  from 
Example  seeks  to  show,  not  a  cause  for  the  result,  if  that 
exist,  but  that  the  result  does  exist.  It  seeks  to  establish  a 
likeness  of  results  by  pointing  out  a  likeness  in  the  given 
case,  not  simply  to  one  part  of  a  past  known  process 
which  led  to  the  result  in  question,  but  to  several  parts. 
For  instance,  in  the  case  just  cited  suppose  that  the 
lawyer  can  show  that  in  both  cases  an  over-dose  of  mor- 
phine was  found  in  the  body  of  the  victim,  that  in  each 
case  the  accused  showed  special  knowledge  of  the  use 
of  morphine,  that  the  relations  of  accused  and  victim 
were  the  same,  and  that  these  three  conditions  were 
inseparably  connected  with  the  proved  murder  in  the 
first  case.  Then  by  the  Argument  from  Example  he 
would  say  that  the  accused  in  this  case  is  the  murderer. 
Yet  each  of  these  resemblances  taken  by  itself  is  an 
Argument  from  Sign.  As  has  been  said,  the  Argument 
from  Example  covers  any  number  of  resemblances  from 
two  to  complete  resemblance.  In  all  the  degrees  of 
resemblance,  except  the  last,  witnesses  are  not  sum- 
moned to  swear  that  they  saw  the  murder  but  to  state 
circumstances  which  lead  to  a  belief  that  murder  was 
committed,  i.e.,  to  give  indirect  evidence.  But  a  man 
cannot  swear  to  the  last  degree,  to  the  complete  resem- 
blance between  two  cases,  unless  he  was  a  direct  witness  to 
the  case  in  point.  Therefore  this  evidence,  the  argument 
from  complete  resemblance,  is  direct  evidence.  Thus  the 
three  divisions,  Antecedent  Probability,  Sign,  and  Ex- 
ample, cover  the  whole  field  of  evidence. 

The  distinctions  of  evidence  just  given  have  not  been 
very  helpful  to  students  of  Argumentation,  because  the 
differences   between   them   and    especially   that   between 


206  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

Sign  and  Example  are  difficult  to  state  and  to  under- 
stand. The  nomenclature  is  largely  responsible  for  this 
confusion.  If  a  student  looks  at  the  three  kinds  of  argu- 
ment from  one  point  of  view  they  may  all  be  regarded  as 
signs  of  the  truth  of  the  conclusion  drawn ;  from  another 
point  of  view  he  seems  to  consider  in  them  all  examples, 
though  of  varying  degrees  of  convincingness.  Conse- 
quently it  would  seem  that  he  might  call  all  of  them 
Arguments  from  Sign,  or  all  of  them  Arguments  from 
Example.  The  assignment  of  each  name  to  one  only  of 
the  two  forms  appears  arbitrary  and  confusing. 

A  Fourth  Possible  Division  of  Evidence. 

The  real  significance  of  these  terms,  and,  what  is  far 
more  important,  the  real  relations  of  the  different  kinds 
of  evidence  will,  perhaps,  become  clearer  to  a  student  if 
he  considers  carefully  a  fourth  possible  division  of  the  field 
of  evidence,  —  that  is,  into  argument  from  a  resemblance 
which,  if  it  be  found  that  the  result  really  occurred,  may 
have  produced  this  result ;  argument  from  a  resemblance 
known  in  a  past  case  to  be  an  essential  part  of  a  process 
leading  to  the  result  in  question  ;  argument  from  a  series 
of  such  resemblances  ;  and  argument  from  complete 
resemblance.  The  following  will  illustrate  this  method 
of  division. 

Two  Harvard  graduates  are  chatting  of  Harvard  athlet- 
ics. The  first  says :  "  Well,  ever  since  that  case  of  unfair 
tackling  by  a  Harvard  man  two  years  ago  at  a  critical 
moment  for  Harvard,  I  have  never  cared  much  for  the 
game."  "Ah,  but,"  says  the  second,  "do  you  know  that 
there  was  unfair  tackling  ?     Was  not  that  denied  ?     Did 


ARGUMENTATION.  207 

you  see  the  game  ?  "  "  No,"  the  first  admits,  "  I  did  not 
see  the  game,  I  simply  repeat  the  general  report  current 
at  the  time.  Did  you  see  the  game  ?  "  "  No,"  says  the 
second,  "  but  I  have  never  believed  that  there  was  any 
unfair  tackling.  What  reason  have  you  to  believe  that  there 
was  ?  "  Note  that  neither  of  these  men  knows  anything 
directly  of  the  question  in  dispute,  the  tackling  ;  that  at 
the  moment  no  direct  evidence  is  possible.  What  is  the 
first  indirect  evidence  to  support  a  belief  in  unfair  tackling 
that  the  first  man  can  produce  ?  He  may  point  out  that 
it  is  a  common  saying,  "  A  drowning  man  will  clutch  at  a 
straw";  that  the  critical  position  of  the  Harvard  team 
offered  an  analogy  to  the  drowning  man  ;  and  say  that, 
therefore,  the  unfair  tackling,  the  straw,  was  used.  What 
the  man  does  is  to  strive  to  find  a  resemblance  between 
this  case  and  another  of  which  he  knows  something, 
and  from  the  similarity  to  draw  the  conclusion  that 
the  cases  are  alike  in  the  point  in  question.  He  tries 
to  use  the  so-called  Argument  from  Analogy,  which 
shows,  not  that  the  two  cases  are.  alike  in  the  point 
in  question,  unfair  tackling,  but  in  another  respect,  —  a 
condition  of  a  drowning  man.  But  the  second  man  will 
point  out  that  until  the  first  can  prove  that  the  position 
of  the  Harvard  team  was  just  as  critical  as  that  of  the 
drowning  man,  that  they  were  in  a  position  to  do  anything 
which  could  aid  them,  he  can  prove  nothing  about  the 
point  in  question,  the  tackling.  That  is,  an  analogy  can 
have  no  probative  valne  until  it  is  shown  that  there  is 
some  essential  connection  between  the  point  of  resemblance 
and  the  result  in  question.  The  most  that  it  can  offer  in 
itself  argumentatively  is  a  very  slight  increase  in  probability 
that  the  result  in  question  may  be  true. 


208  ARGUMENTATION. 

Suppose,  however,  that  the  second  man  had  heard 
enough  of  this  particular  game  to  be  willing  to  admit  that 
the  situation  was,  indeed,  as  critical  as  this  for  the  Harvard 
team.  Immediately  this  resemblance  offers  a  possible 
motive  for  the  unfair  tackling.  That  is,  there  is  now 
granted  a  slight  antecedent  probability  that  the  unfair 
tackling  took  place.  The  Argument  from  Analogy,  then, 
as  has  just  been  seen,  is  not  separable  here,  as  an  argu- 
ment, from  the  Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability.  If 
the  resemblance  cannot  be  shown  to  be  connected  with 
the  point  in  question,  it  cannot  be  used  as  an  argument  ; 
if  it  can,  it  becomes  the  Argument  from  Antecedent 
Probability,  or  one  of  the  two  kinds  of  argument  still  to 
be  explained,  Sign  and  Example. 

If,  now,  the  first  man  tries  to  find  other  Arguments  from 
Antecedent  Probability,  he  may  say  that  the  man  accused 
of  unfair  tackling  is  known  to  have  an  ugly  temper,  to  be 
tricky,  that  he  is  known  to  have  a  grudge  against  the  man 
tackled.  Here  he  really  says :  "  Comparing  this  case 
with  others,  all  the  circumstances  of  which  I  know,  I 
see  here  a  possible  motive  for  the  act  that  in  a  past 
case  was  the  motive  for  a  like  result,  unfair  play." 
Thus  far  the  first  man  has  not  brought  forward  any. 
proof  that  there  was  unfair  tackling,  but,  assuming  that 
there  was,  has  been  trying  to  find  a  cause  for  the  assumed 
result.  Consequently,  an  Argument  from  Antecedent 
Probability  cannot  by  itself  convince.  It  needs  stronger 
evidence  to  support  it.  It  simply  shows  a  varying  degree 
of  probability  that  the  result  in  question  took  place.  Note 
that  all  the  resemblances  in  the  illustrations  given  have 
been  seen  by  the  first  speaker,  the  investigator,  so  to 
speak,  of  the  case.     He  might,  however,  draw  his  argu- 


ARGUMENTA  TION 


209 


ment,  not  from  a  resemblance  to  a  past  case  known  to 
him,  but  like  the  second  speaker,  if  he  accepts  the  argu- 
ment of  the  first,  from  a  resemblance  to  something  in  the 
experience  of  another  person,  a  resemblance  first  seen  by 
another,  and  dependent  for  its  force  on  the  correctness  of 
that  other  person's  experience.  Evidently  such  a  resem- 
blance may  first  have  been  pointed  out  by  a  living  witness, 
or  in  a  letter  or  some  publication  by  one  now  dead. 

The  evidence  thus  far  produced  to  support  the  idea  of 
unfair  tackling  may  be  tabulated  as  follows * :  — 


I. 


o 

c 
<v 

•e 

U 

>-. 
o 

«-M 

<L> 


£ 

3 


V 

M 

S 

a 

en 


0)     £**» 

en    ,0 

Dq    w 


(<?)  Argument  from  a  resemblance,  ^ 
the  possible  connection  of  which  with 
the  point  in  question   needs   demon- 
stration. 

If  the  resemblance  is  shown  (i)  not 
to  be  connected  with  the  point  in 
question  it  has  no  value  as  proof  in 
the  case  under  discussion  ;  if  (2)  it 
is  shown  to  have  connection  with  it, 
then  it  becomes  the  Argument  from 
Antecedent  Probability,  from  Sign,  or 
from  Example. 

(J?)  Argument  from  a  resemblance "! 
to  something  seen  in  a  past  case  to 
have  been  a  or  the  cause  of  a  result 
like  that  in  question,  and,  if  the  occur- 
rence of  the  result  in  this  case  is 
proved,  probably  a  or  the  cause  of  the 
result  in  question. 


^  to 
>  B 
3   3 

Cfq     r+ 

o 


r. 

> 

n 

a 

C3 

-1 
CTQ 

d 

5 

r+ 

a 

►ti 

13 

i-1 

O 

Ml 

O1 

>"1 

O 

& 

^ 

£ 

> 

k2 

3 

1  The  tables  which  follow  are  developed  from  that  on  pp.  127,  128  of  an 
Introduction  to  Theme  Writing,  Fletcher  and  Carpenter. 


210  ARGUMENTATION. 

The  two  men  have  now  exhausted  the  kinds  of  proof 
that  may  be  adduced  by  those  who  did  not  see  the  game. 
Suppose,  then,  that  a  third  man  enters  who  saw  the  game, 
and  who,  though  he  cannot  say  that  he  saw  the  unfair 
tackling,  firmly  believes  that  it  took  place.  On  what  will 
he  rest  his  belief,  when  the  second  man  asks  him  for  his 
reasons  ?  This  third  man  will  say  that  he  believes  as  he 
does,  not  only  because  he  knows  that  the  condition  of  the 
game  gave  the  Harvard  men  a  motive  for  the  alleged  act 
(Antecedent  Probability),  but  also  because  the  position  in 
which  the  accused  man  and  his  opponent  lay  when  the 
men  who  had  piled  on  top  of  them  drew  off  proves  that 
there  was  unfair  tackling.  Here,  again,  proof  rests  on  a 
resemblance.  This  time  the  third  man  really  says :  "  I 
recognize  in  this  case  an  essential  part  of  the  process  of 
unfair  tackling  wherever  it  occurs  ;  wherever  one  sees 
this  sign,  I  know  from  past  experience  that  the  rest  of 
the  process  must  be  present  when  this  part  is  ;  therefore 
I  know  that  in  this  case,  though  I  could  not  see  it,  there 
was  unfair  tackling."  This  is  simply  what  has  been  pre- 
viously considered  as  the  Argument  from  Sign. 

It  may  be,  however,  that  this  man  saw  not  one 
resemblance  to  cases  of  tackling  known  to  him,  but  from 
two  to  a  dozen  resemblances.  Recalling  past  cases  of 
unfair  tackling  to  the  minds  of  his  hearers,  he  points  out 
that  in  those,  as  well  as  in  this  instance,  the  man  running 
with  the  ball  was  holding  it  in  the  same  way,  that  the 
relative  sizes  of  the  man  tackled  and  the  man  tackling 
were  the  same,  that  the  look  of  the  field  as  the  two  men 
in  question  appeared  from  under  the  other  players  was 
the  same,  etc.  He  carefully  points  out,  too,  that  in  the 
past  cases  all  these  points  are  known  to  have  been  essen- 


ARGUMENTATION.  211 

tial  parts  of  the  process  of  unfair  tackling.  That  is,  he 
offers  not  one  Argument  from  Sign,  but  a  series  of  them. 
This  is  but  the  so-called  Argument  from  Example.  In 
using  both  these  arguments  the  man  says,  not  "  If  there 
was  unfair  tackling,  then,"  etc.,  but  "  There  was  unfair 
tackling,  because,"  etc.  Clearly  the  discussion  has  passed 
from  judgment  without  any  experience  as  to  the  point  in 
question,  the  tackling  in  a  certain  game,  to  judgment  after 
partial  experience  in  regard  to  it  —  knowledge  of  the  cir- 
cumstances giving  rise  to  the  charge. 

The  people  who  can  bear  witness  of  the  two  kinds, 
Sign  and  Example,  in  favor  of  the  idea  of  unfair  tackling 
are  of  three  sorts :  other  people  than  the  first  speaker, 
who  divide  into  two  classes,  living  and  dead  witnesses; 
and  the  first  speaker  himself.  That  is,  a  man  may  join 
the  two  disputants,  as  in  the  case  above,  who  can  give 
this  testimony  because  he  saw  the  game,  a  living  witness ; 
or  the  two  men  may  hunt  up  a  file  of  the  Harvard  Crimson 
and  read  in  an  old  number  evidence  from  Sign  or  from 
Example,  given  by  a  writer  no  longer  living;  or,  to  put 
aside  the  first  hypothesis,  that  neither  of  the  original 
debaters  saw  the  game,  the  first  of  the  two  men  may 
have  been  at  the  game  and,  though  he  did  not  see  the 
unfair  tackling,  may  have  seen  what  seem  to  him  signs 
of  it. 

These  two  arguments  may  be  tabulated  as  follows  :  — 


212 


ARGUMENTA  TION. 


II. 


o 

a. 

< 

<u 

X 

o 
c 

W 

0) 

,__ 

TD 

rt 

'1 

4-> 

-t-> 

PL, 

o 

<v 
u 

"-3 

<-M 

c 

+-> 

C 

0) 

s 

bjo 

T3 

3 

h— j 

J 

Resem- 
blance 
seen  by 
me  (the 
speaker 
or  writer), 
or 
B. 
By  other 

men. 
(a)  Living. 
t  (£)  Dead. 


(a)  Argument  from  a  re- 
semblance to  something  that 
in  a  past  case  was  an  essential 
part  of  a  process  leading  to 
the  result  in  question  that  the 
same  result  must  occur  in  this 
)■  case. 

(J?)  Argument  from  two  or> 
more  resemblances  known  in  a 
past  case  to  be  essentially  con- 
nected with  the  result  in  ques- 
tion that  the  same  result  will 
occur  in  this  case. 


bJD  ^ 


Plainly,  the  more  resemblances  the  first  man  can  show 
between  conditions  attending  the  alleged  unfair  tackling 
and  conditions  connected  with  unfair  tackling  in  a  past 
game  or  games,  the  more  convincing  he  will  become. 
As  he  increases  these  resemblances  he  may  finally  reach 
complete  resemblance,  but  this  recognition  of  complete- 
ness of  resemblance  means  that  the  witness  must  have 
had  full  experience  both  of  the  past  cases  and  of  the 
present  case,  —  must  give  direct  evidence.  Plainly,  it 
can  be  given,  as  was  the  testimony  in  II,  by  other  men, 
living  or  now  dead,  who  were  at  the  game  and  testify  that 
they  saw  the  unfair  tackling,  or  by  the  first  speaker,  who 
testifies  that  he  himself  saw  it. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  2  U 

This  new  evidence  may  be  tabulated  as  follows  :  — 

III. 


Direct 
Kvidence. 


Juofcment 
after 
Expert 


r  (a)  Complete   resemblance. 
Seen  by  others. 


Living  witnesses. 


ence. 


2.   Dead  witnesses. 
(J>)   Complete   resemblance. 

Seen  by  me  (the  speaker  or  writer). 


The  whole  field  of  evidence  may,  then,  be  tabulated  in 
this  way  :  — 


*s 

93 

£    . 

>>^ 

£>     « 

c  'C 

o 

B 

en     )_ 

<u 

CD       U 

c    <u 

6 

cu 

rt    ^ 

cu 

J2      V 

53    m 

*> 

Res 
(the 

u 

CD 

^ 

T3 

c 

C 

CD 

a 

<U 

O     en 

T3 

fl 

~    ^ 

> 

r 

B.  Resemb 
seen  by  ot 

V 

(a)  Argument  from  a  resemblance, 
the  possible  connection  of  which  with 
the  point  in  question  needs  demon- 
stration. 

If  the  resemblance  is  shown  (i)  not 
to  be  connected  with  the  point  in  i 
question,  it  has  no  value  as  proof  in 
the  case  under  discussion ;  if  (2)  it 
is  shown  to  have  connection  with  it, 
"then  it  becomes  the  Argument  from 
Antecedent  Probability,  from  Sign,  or 
from  Example. 

(J?)  Argument  from  a  resemblance^ 
to  something  seen  in  a  past  case  to 
have  been  a  or  the  cause  of  a  result 
like  that  in  question,  and,  if  the  occur- 
rence of  the  result  in  this  case  is 
proved,  probably  a  or  the  cause  of  the 
result  in  question. 


arc. 

> 

3 

% 

£L 

(T> 

cT 

- 

era 

r~^ 

y< 

rt) 

d 

5 

^   Z- 


214 


ARGUMENTA  TION. 


* 

7 

f 

a; 

u 

B 

a; 

In 

<u 

a, 

6 

x 

W 

<u 

T2 

.2 

*> 

w 

.   a3 

< 

Ph 

o 

|h 

In 

H3 

c 

HH 

C 

£ 

bJO 
P 

. 

I 

A. 

Resem- 
blance 
seen  by 
me  (the 
speaker 
or  writer.) 

orV 

v 

By  othAr 

men.  ^ 

(a)  Living. 

(b)  Dead. 


(a)  Argument  from  a  resem- 
blance to  something  tftat  in  a 
pa)et    case  lw2Vs    an/  essential 

jDart;  of   a  \  process  leading  to 
the  result  m  quest\on  thlt  the 
It  must  occur  in  this 

(b)  Argument  from  two  or 
more  resemblances  known  in  a 
past  case  to  be  essentially  con- 
nected with  tiie  result  in  ques- 


occur  in  this 


same  result 
case. 


<U     bJO 

S  33 
a 

bJO 


S 

Sri 

bJO  ^ 
H 

7 


Direct     I    Judftment 
>.       after 
Evidence.    _ 

!  Experience. 

j 


This  chart  shows,  then,  that  it  is  possible  to  divide  the 
field  of  evidence  on  the  basis  of  completeness  of  resem- 
blance between  two  phenomena,  and  that  in  so  doing  a 
student  moves  by  graduated  steps  from  a  resemblance 
that  has  no  probative  value  to  complete  resemblance.  It 
must  make  clear,  too,  that  this  method  of  division  but 
renames  what  has  already  been  considered  as  Direct  and 
Indirect  (or  Circumstantial)  Evidence  ;  or  as  the  Argu- 
ment from  Antecedent  Probability,  the  Argument  from 
Sign,  and  the  Argument  from  Example.  The  chart 
shows,  also,  that  all  Evidence  must  be  from  a  man's  own 
experience  or  from  that  of  other  men. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  215 

The  Fundamental  Reason  why  One  Man  questions  the 
Evidence  of  Another. 

This  last  very  broad  division  of  evidence  for  any  man, 
into  his  own  and  that  of  other  men,  is  very  significant 
because  it  opens  up  the  subject  of  tests  of  evidence. 
Each  human  being  is  so  constituted  that  for  him  what 
seems  to  him  true,  is  true,  and  should,  he  ordinarily  thinks, 
be  true  for  all  his  fellowmen.  It  is  this  fact  in  human 
life  which  underlies  the  tendency  of  all  men  to  assert  their 
opinions  unqualifiedly.  They  forget  that  lack  of  equal 
knowledge  of  the  subject,  differences  of  temperament, 
prejudice,  many  causes,  may  make  their  neighbors  unable 
to  see  the  matter  as  they  themselves  do  —  at  least  not 
without  explanation  of  the  reasons  for  their  belief.  That 
is,  for  any  man  his  recognitions  of  complete  resemblances, 
his  identifications,  are  more  convincing  than  those  of  an- 
other man,  while  for  that  other  man  his  own  identifications 
are  more  convincing  than  those  of  the  first.  Each  will 
dispute  the  truth  of  the  other's  identifications.  This 
is  true  of  men  clashing  in  their  judgments,  not  only  when 
both  think  they  have  had  full  experience,  but  even  when 
they  judge  from  partial  experience  or  before  experience, 
or  when  one  has  the  advantage  of  the  other  in  full  or  in 
partial  experience  as  opposed  to  partial  or  no  experience. 
In  all  these  cases  what  the  opponent  will  question  will  be 
the  sanity,  the  good  faith,  or  the  good  judgment  of  his 
opponent.  Sometimes  he  will  question  two  or  all  of  these. 
He  may  know  that  the  man  is  not  quite  right  in  his  mind 
and  —  to  recur  to  the  football  illustration  —  sees  unfair 
plays  in  every  game  he  attends.  Or  he  may  know  that 
he  is  willing  to  defend  a  friend,  even  at  the  cost  of  truth. 


216  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

Or  he  may  know  that  he  does  not  understand  football 
well  enough  to  be  able  in  a  difficult  case  to  tell  fair  from 
unfair  tackling.  He  may,  then,  attack  the  first  man's 
evidence  on  any  of  these  grounds.  This  opponent,  how- 
ever, who  questions  other  men's  evidence  so  closely  must 
always  remember  that  his  own  judgments  after  full,  after 
partial,  and  before  experience,  are  open  to  objections  on 
just  the  grounds  he  has  used  from  all  who  do  not  agree 
with  him  or  do  not  understand  him.  Every  kind  of 
evidence,  then,  in  the  chart  on  pages  213,  214  is  likely  to 
be  objected  to  on  some  or  all  of  the  tJiree  grounds  —  lack  of 
sanity,  good  faith,  and  good  judgment. 

Some  General  Reasons  why  Evidence  should  be 
Carefully  sifted. 

There  are  two  general  reasons  why  any  cautious  worker 
in  Argumentation  should  carefully  weigh  and  sift  every 
bit  of  evidence  —  not  merely  his  opponent's,  but  his  own 
just  as  thoroughly  —  that  comes  before  him  as  he  is 
preparing  his  case. 

The  first  reason  for  such  careful  examination  is  that  he 
shall  thoroughly  understand  the  strength  of  both  sides  of 
the  case,  and  shall  not  fail  at  some  important  place  by 
overestimating  the  value  of  his  own  proof,  or  under- 
estimating the  strength  of  that  of  his  opponent.  The 
second  reason  is  that  when  a  writer  does  give  undue  value 
to  a  bit  of  evidence  he  loses  more  than  the  point  at  the 
moment  under  consideration  ;  he  causes  the  reader  to 
wonder  whether  this  failure  comes  from  a  trickiness  that 
would  palm  off  evidence  as  convincing  which  is  not,  and 
evidence  as  unconvincing  that  is  strong,  or  from  a  failure  to 
understand  the  case.     Under  either  supposition  the  reader 


ARGUMENTATION.  217 

becomes  suspicious  and  may  doubt  the  convincingness  of 
what  has  preceded,  or  the  value  of  all  that  follows.  That 
is,  such  a  failure  raises  a  feeling  of  distrust  of  either  the 
fairness  or  the  ability  of  the  worker,  and  is  very  prejudi- 
cial to  his  interests.  A  student  of  Argumentation  cannot 
afford  ever  to  try  to  use  a  bit  of  evidence  for  a  purpose 
for  which  it  is  unfit.  There  is  not  only  convincingness 
but  persuasive  power  in  a  handling  of  evidence  which 
shows  that  the  worker  has  correctly  valued  his  material. 

This  necessity  for  caution  in  using  even  the  evidence 
which  favors  a  writer's  views  will  become  apparent  to 
any  one  who  tries  to  uphold  the  affirmative  or  the  negative 
on  some  topic  of  the  day.  He  will  gather  his  material 
from  chats  with  friends,  from  the  newspapers  and  the 
periodicals,  editorials,  letters  to  the  press,  and  speeches  of 
congressmen.  It  is  self-evident  that  all  the  material 
gathered  cannot  have  an  equal  value  ;  it  is  not,  apparently, 
self-evident  to  beginners  in  Argumentation  how  weak  much 
of  the  evidence  on  such  topics  necessarily  is.  To  begin 
with,  most  of  the  letters  and  articles  are  expositions  of 
opinions,  not  arguments,  and  what  they  give  is  not  proof 
through  well-selected  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  opinions. 
The  student  who  uses  these  words,  therefore,  quotes  mere 
assertions.  That  is  but  one  step  away  from  his  own  bare 
assertions,  which  he  has  learned  not  to  expect  any  one  to 
accept,  and  why  should  a  careful  reader  accept  these? 
Often  they  come  from  some  letter  signed  only  with 
initials,  often  they  are  from  an  unsigned  article.  If  a 
student  quotes  any  part  of  one  of  these  articles  he  uses 
not  only  unsupported  assertion,  but  an  unsupported  asser- 
tion for  which  no  one  can  be  held  responsible.  What 
possible  value,  then,  can  it  have  ?     Even  when  the  quo- 


218  ARGUMENTATION. 

tation  is  an  editorial,  or  a  signed  article  in  a  magazine, 
unless  reasons  for  the  opinions  are  given,  it  is,  after  all, 
mere  assertion.  Unless,  therefore,  it  can  be  taken  as  the 
Argument  from  Authority,  it  is  valueless.  Even  when 
these  articles  give  evidence,  it  needs  close  examination  for 
political  or  personal  bias.  Moreover,  in  these  days,  men 
frequently  write  magazine  articles,  not  because  they  know 
more  than  other  men  on  the  subjects,  but  because  the 
fame  that  has  come  to  them  in  another  field  will  surely 
sell  copies  of  the  magazine  containing  anything  they 
write.  A  student  who  does  not  weigh  carefully  the 
evidence  for,  as  well  as  against  him,  is  like  a  lawyer  who, 
without  any  previous  knowledge  of  his  witnesses,  hears 
their  story  first  on  the  witness-stand,  and  is  forced  to  let 
their  testimony  count  for  what  it  will.  If  they  do  not 
prove  what  he  wishes  to  prove,  if  they  involve  him  in 
unexpected  difficulties,  he  must  not  complain,  for  it  is  his 
own  fault.  Nor  must  the  writer  who  works  in  the  same 
way  complain.  The  careful  worker  will  scrutinize,  con- 
sider, and  value  every  bit  of  evidence  that  comes  to  him, 
and  by  throwing  out,  first,  what  is  plainly  entirely  valueless, 
and  then  what,  because  of  other  stronger  evidence  in  his 
possession,  is  for  him  worthless,  gradually  reduce  his 
material  to  evidence  all  of  which  has  been  tested  by  him 
and  found  to  have  value  in  his  work.  Even  this,  however, 
must  be  a  mass  made  up  of  parts  of  varying  values,  and 
the  student  must  clearly  settle  their  relative  strength  if 
he  is  to  complete  successfully  from  these  bits  the  mosaic 
of  his  argumentation. 

Plainly,  then,  to  learn  how  to  test  the  sanity,  the  good- 
faith,  and  the  judgment  of  those,  living  and  dead,  who 
offer  a  student  evidence  for  and  against  the  theory  he 


ARGUMENTATION.  219 

wishes  to  examine,  must  be  a  very  important  part  of  the 
study  of  Argumentation. 

To  Question  Evidence  is  always  to  Question  a  Judgment. 

Before  a  reader  considers  in  detail  what  the  chief  tests 
of  the  value  of  a  bit  of  evidence  are,  it  will  probably  help 
him  to  see  just  what  it  is  that  he  does  when  he  questions 
a  fellow-being's  statement.  If  he  looks  at  any  one  of 
the  many  kinds  of  statements  on  pages  206-214,  he  will 
see  that  all  involve,  apparently,  two  things :  certain 
so-called  "facts" ;  and  a  judgment  from  these  facts.  That 
is,  when  the  first  man  says  that  since  a  bit  of  unfair  tack- 
ling, if  undiscovered,  would  have  saved  the  day  for 
Harvard,  and  adds  that  therefore  Harvard  probably  did 
tackle  unfairly,  he  really  says  this :  1 .  Unfair  tackling  in 
this  game  at  a  particular  moment  would,  if  undiscovered, 
have  saved  the  day  for  Harvard ;  2.  In  past  cases  this 
motive  has  been  sufficient  to  cause  unfair  tackling  ; 
3.  Therefore  there  probably  was  unfair  tackling  here.  If 
the  second  man  wishes  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  words  of 
the  first  he  can  do  either  of  two  things :  attack  the  state- 
ments which  serve  as  facts,  from  which  the  conclusion  3 
is  drawn ;  or  say  that  the  conclusion  is  false,  though  1  and 
2  are  not.  If  he  attacks  3,  showing  that  though  1  and  2 
are  true,  sufficient  counteracting  causes  were  present  to 
prevent  3  from  following  on  them,  it  is  clear  that  he 
attacks  a  judgment  by  the  other  man,  what  Professor 
Sidgwick  has  called  a  "  question  of  theory."  1  If  he  attacks 
1  or  2,  showing  that  foul  play  would  not  have  bettered 
the  situation,  or  that  in  the  past  the  motive  named  has 

1  For  a  fuller  treatment  of  this  matter,  see  pp.  12-20,  Process  of  Argu- 
ment, Sidgwick. 


220  A  KG  UMENTA  TION. 

not  led  to  the  result,  it  would  seem,  at  first  sight,  that 
he  deals  with  something  different,  with  a  question  of  fact 
rather  than  with  a  question  of  judgment.  This,  however, 
is  not  true.  In  either  case  what  is  really  questioned  is  a 
judgment  by  the  opponent.  In  the  first  case  the  oppo- 
nent really  said :  "  From  a  resemblance  between  this 
game  and  other  games  known  to  me,  I  form  the  judgment 
that  foul  play  at  the  point  in  question  would  have  saved 
the  day."  This  is,  clearly,  a  judgment.  In  the  second 
case  the  opponent  really  said :  "  From  resemblances  seen 
between  games  in  the  past  I  form  the  judgment  that  the 
motive  for  foul  play  in  them  was  the  dire  need  of  the 
side  which  made  it."  Clearly,  then,  all  reasoning  is  but 
a  series  of  judgments,  and  whenever  an  opponent  ques- 
tions a  bit  of  evidence  what  he  really  doubts  is  a  judgment 
by  the  witness. 

III.     TESTS    OF   EVIDENCE. 

i.    Testing  the  Statement. 

When,  then,  a  man  makes  an  assertion  which  a  student 
does  not  understand,  or  does  not  wish  to  believe,  what 
should  be  his  first  steps  in  attacking  the  evidence  ?  Take, 
again,  the  illustration  already  used.  The  first  man  said  : 
" Probably  there  was  unfair  tackling  in  the  football  game." 
"  I  do  not  believe  that.  Why  do  you  think  so?"  the  second 
answered.  The  first  then  said  :  "  Because  an  unfair  tackle 
at  just  that  point  in  the  game  was  enough  to  save  the  day, 
and  that  motive  has  in  past  cases  caused  unfair  tackling." 
The  second  man,  unwilling  to  give  in,  will  first  look  at  these 
two  reasons  to  see  if  there  is  anything  in  them  to  attack. 
Suppose  that  he  grants  the  second  statement,  but  says 
that  he  cannot  believe  that  even  an  unfair  tackle  could 


ARGUMENTATION.  221 

have  saved  the  Harvard  game  in  the  crisis  named.  Then 
he  says :  "  That  does  not  seem  to  me  in  accordance  with 
ordinary  experience  —  you  must  give  me  proof  that  it  is." 
Or  he  may  say :  "  I  cannot  believe  this,  because  we 
already  know  other  circumstances  which  show  that  this 
was  not  the  only  hope  —  what  you  say  does  not  agree 
with  the  other  facts  already  known  in  regard  to  this  case." 
Or  he  may  object:  "Your  statement  is  in  itself  contra- 
dictory ;  therefore  I  cannot  believe  it."  That  is,  a 
statement,  a  bit  of  evidence,  may  in  itself  be  questioned 
on  any  one  of  these  three  grounds :  "  Is  it  consistent  with 
ordinary  experience ;  with  the  facts  already  known  concern- 
ing the  case  ;  i^it  consistent  with  itself?1' 1 

(a)  Evidence  should  be  Consistent  zvith  Ordinary  Expe- 
rience. —  When  John  Mandeville  writes  of  beings  who 
have  no  heads,  but  have  eyes  and  mouths  between  their 
shoulders,  when  he  talks  of  dog-faced  men,  a  reader 
refuses  to  take  his  words  for  more  than  fairy  tales, 
because  they  are  not  consistent  with  human  experience. 

The  following  quotation  from  A  Roman  Lawyer  in 
Jerusalem,  a  poetic  plea  in  behalf  of  Judas,2  is  simply  a 
statement  of  the  details  in  his  career,  which  seem,  if  he 
were  a  criminal,  contrary  to  ordinary  experience. 

M  Was  he  a  villain  lost  to  sense  of  shame  ? 
Ay,  so  say  John  and  Peter  and  the  rest ; 
And  yet  —  and  yet  this  tale  that  Lysias  tells 
Weighs  with  me  more  the  more  I  ponder  it ; 
For  thus  I  put  it :  Either  Judas  was, 
As  John  affirms,  a  villain  and  a  tuief, 

1  Practical  Rhetoric,  Genung,  p.  410.     Ginn  &  Co.,  1893. 

2  A  Roman  Lawyer  in  Jerusalem.  W.  W.  Story,  pp.  12-14.  Colby  & 
Rich,  Boston. 


222  ARGUMENTATION. 

A  creature  lost  to  shame  and  base  at  heart — 

Or  else,  which  is  the  view  which  Lysias  takes, 

He  was  a  rash  and  visionary  man 

Whose  faith  was  firm,  who  had  no  thought  of  crime, 

But  whom  a  terrible  mistake  drove  mad. 

Take  but  John's  view,  and  all  to  me  is  blind. 

Call  him  a  villain  who,  with  greed  of  gain, 

For  thirty  silver  pieces  sold  his  Lord. 

Does  not  the  bribe  seem  all  too  small  and  mean  ? 

He  held  the  common  purse,  and,  were  he  thief, 

Had  daily  power  to  steal,  and  lay  aside 

A  secret  and  accumulating  fund. 

So  doing,  he  had  nothing  risked  of  fame, 

While  here  he  braved  the  scorn  of  all  the  world. 

Besides,  why  chose  they  for  their  almoner 

A  man  so  lost  to  shame,  so  foul  with  greed  ? 

Or  why,  from  some  five-score  of  trusted  men, 
Choose  him  as  one  apostle  among  twelve  ? 
Or  why,  if  he  were  known  to  be  so  vile, 
(And  who  can  hide  his  baseness  at  all  times?) 
Keep  him  in  close  communion  to  the  last  ? 
Naught  in  his  previous  life,  or  acts,  or  words, 
Shows  this  consummate  villain  that,  full-grown, 
Leaps  all  at  once  to  such  a  height  of  crime. 

Again,  how  comes  it  that  this  wretch,  whose  heart 
Is  cased  to  shame,  flings  back  the  paltry  bribe? 
And,  when  he  knows  his  master  is  condemned, 
Rushes  in  horror  out  to  seek  his  death  ? 
Whose  fingers  pointed  at  him  in  the  crowd  ? 
Did  all  men  flee  his  presence  till  he  found 
Life  too  intolerable  ?     Nay  ;  not  so  ! 
Death  came  too  close  upon  the  heels  of  crime. 
He  had  but  done  what  all  his  tribe  deemed  just : 
All  the  great  mass  —  I  mean  the  upper  class  — 
The  Rabbis,  all  the  Pharisees  and  Priests  — 
Ay,  and  the  lower  mob  as  well  who  cried, 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  Ill 

Give  us  Barabbas  !  Christus  to  the  cross  ! '  — 

These  men  were  all  of  them  on  Judas's  side, 

And  Judas  had  done  naught  against  the  law. 

Were  he  this  villain,  he  had  but  to  say, 

I  followed  Christus  till  I  found  at  last 

He  aimed  at  power  to  overthrow  the  State. 

I  did  the  duty  of  an  honest  man. 

I  traitor  !  —  You  are  traitors  who  reprove.' 

Besides,  such  villains  scorn  the  world's  reproof. 

Or  he  might  say —  '  You  call  this  act  a  crime? 
What  crime  was  it  to  say,  "  I  know  this  man"  ? 
I  said  no  ill  of  him.     If  crime  there  be, 
'T  was  yours  who  doomed  him  unto  death,  not  mine.' 

A  villain  was  he  ?     So  Barabbas  was  ! 
But  did  Barabbas  go  and  hang  himself, 
Weary  of  life  —  the  murderer  and  thief? 
This  coarse  and  vulgar  way  will  never  do. 
Grant  him  a  villain,  all  his  acts  must  be 
Acts  of  a  villain  ;  if  you  once  admit 
Remorse  so  bitter  that  it  leads  to  death 
And  death  so  instant  on  the  heels  of  crime, 
You  grant  a  spirit  sensitive  to  shame, 
So  sensitive  that  life  can  yield  no  joys 
To  counterbalance  one  bad  act ;  —  but  then 
A  nature  such  as  this,  though  led  astray, 
When  greatly  tempted,  is  no  thorough  wretch. 
Was  the  temptation  great  ?     Could  such  a  bribe 
Tempt  such  a  nature  to  a  crime  like  this  ? 
I  say,  to  me  it  simply  seems  absurd. 

Peter  at  least  was  not  so  sensitive. 
He  cursed  and  swore,  denying  that  he  knew 
Who  the  man  Christus  was  ;  but  after  all 
He  only  wept  —  he  never  hanged  himself." 


224  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

The  Weakness  of  this  Test. 

When  the  objection  is  raised  to  evidence  that  it  is 
contrary  to  ordinary  experience,  clearly  the  evidence 
cannot  be  conclusive  unless  the  writer  is  sure  that  he 
knows  all  that  ordinary  experience  has  to  offer  in  regard 
to  it.  Such  complete  knowledge  is,  of  course,  extremely 
rare.  Further  study  by  the  writer,  new  discoveries,  may 
suddenly  turn  what  was  extraordinary  into  mere  ordinary 
experience.  When,  twenty  years  ago,  Paul  du  Chaillu 
wrote  of  the  pigmies  in  Africa,  and  told  of  other  marvels v 
seen  in  the  wilds,  many  men  smiled,  called  his  books 
entertaining  stories,  and  refused  to  give  them  more  than  a 
partial  credence.  That  was  because  what  he  said  seemed 
to  be  inconsistent  with  ordinary  experience.  To-day, 
however,  the  discoveries  of  Stanley  and  of  later  explorers 
have  vindicated  M.  du  Chaillu.  Evidently,  then,  all  that 
a  student  can  say  to  such  evidence  is,  "  After  careful 
search  I  can  find  nothing  that  supports  the  assertion  that 
this  idea  is  common  experience,  and  for  the  present  I  must 
declare  it  untrustworthy."  Such  a  flaw  in  the  evidence, 
then,  shows  a  probability  rather  than  a  certainty  that  it 
is  incorrect  as  a  whole,  the  strength  of  the  probability 
depending  on  the  amount  of  knowledge  which  the  student 
has  of  the  question  in  dispute. 

(b)  Evidence  should  be  Consistent  with  the  Other  Known 
Facts  of  the  Case.  —  When,  however,  evidence  given  is 
not  consistent  with  the  facts  already  known  concerning 
the  case,  it  at  once  becomes  very  suspicious.  For  instance, 
in  the  following  case,  the  theory  of  Pasteur  could  hardly 
stand  in  the  face  of  what  seemed  established  truths  :- — 

"  When  Pasteur  was  investigating  the  causes  of  splenic  fever 
he  adopted,  very  early  in  the  inquiry,  the  theory  of  Dr.  Davaine, 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  225 

that  the  disease  was  due  to  the  presence  of  a  certain  parasite 
in  the  blood,  and  that  consequently  the  same  disease,  showing 
the  presence  of  the  same  parasite,  could  be  communicated  to 
other  animals  by  inoculation.  On  the  other  side,  two  professors 
to  whom  the  theory  did  not  commend  itself  brought  forward, 
as  a  triumphant  refutation  of  it,  what  seemed  at  first  a  plainly 
contradictory  fact.  They  had  inoculated  some  rabbits  with  the 
blood  of  an  animal  which  had  died  of  splenic  fever,  and  though 
the  rabbits  had  died  very  rapidly  no  trace  of  the  expected 
parasite  had  been  found  in  them  either  before  or  after  their 
death.  Moreover,  their  blood  had  been  used  to  inoculate 
other  rabbits,  and  these  too  had  died  in  the  same  rapid 
manner,  but  with  the  same  disregard  of  what  the  theory  further 
required.  Davaine  at  once  disputed  the.  fact.  That  is  to  say, 
he  insisted  that  the  two  professors  must  have  used  blood  which 
was  not  properly  infected  with  splenic  fever,  but  with  some 
other  disease.  The  professors,  however,  were  equally  certain 
of  their  facts  ;  they  had  got  their  materials  from  the  best 
available  source,  namely,  from  the  director  of  an  establishment 
where  numerous  animals  which  had  died  of  splenic  fever  were 
constantly  brought.  But  in  order  to  convince  the  stubborn 
theorist  they  tried  the  experiment  again,  this  time  obtaining 
their  materials  from  the  most  experienced  veterinary  surgeon  in 
the  neighborhood.  Exactly  the  same  result  followed,  and  the 
facts  certainly  here  appeared  to  be  too  strong  for  the  theory."1 

That  is,  th*e  theory  here  was  not  consistent  with  the 
known  facts  in  the  case. 

A  Danger  of  this  Test. 

Of  course  the  so-called  " facts"  which  are  contradicted 
must  be  very  carefully  examined  and  shown  not  to  be 
open  themselves  to  any  possible  doubt,  before  a  writer 

1  The  Process  of  Argument.     Sidgwick.    pp.  95-96.    A.  &  C.  Black,  1893. 


226  ARGUMENTATION. 

decides  against  the  new  opposing  evidence  as  inadmissible. 
A  student  should  always  remember  that  simply  because  a 
statement  contradicts  generally  accepted  ideas  it  is  not,  as 
has  been  shown,  necessarily  false.  In  the  case  of  Davaine 
just  cited  later  investigation  proved  that  the  so-called 
"facts"  of  the  professors  were  not  facts  at  all. 

"  It  was  some  years  later  when  the  real  weakness  of  the  facts 
themselves  came  to  light.  Davaine's  theory  had  meanwhile 
been  enlarged  and  improved  by  the  discovery  that  if  the  blood 
used  for  inoculation  has  already  begun  to  putrefy,  the  animals 
inoculated  will  die  by  a  form  of  blood-poisoning,  quicker  in  its 
operation  than  splenic  fever,  and  too  quick  to  allow  the  true 
splenic  fever  parasites  time  to  multiply.  This  suggested  a  new 
inquiry  into  the  professors'  experiments,  and  it  was  found  that 
the  blood  used  by  them,  although  certainly  taken  from  cases  of 
splenic  fever,  had  not  been  sufficiently  fresh.  So  that  the  fact 
on  which  they  relied  as  contradicting  the  theory  turned  out  to 
be  wrongly  —  i.e.,  incompletely  —  described.  Through  merely 
overlooking  the  detail  that  the  animals  whose  blood  they  used 
had  been  dead  some  twenty-four  hours,  their  description  of  it  as 
'  splenic  fever  blood '  became  essentially  false."  1 

(c)  Evidence  should  be  Consistent  with  itself.  —  The  next 
test  of  evidence  —  whether  it  is  self-consistent  —  is  more 
final.  Certainly  the  following  contradictory  sentences 
taken  from  a  school-book  would  hardly  be  accepted  as 
conclusive  evidence  in  a  question  on  the  date  of  the  inven- 
tion of  the  magnetic  telegraph  : 

"  Question  759  :     What  of  Professor  Morse's  invention  ? 

"  Answer :  He  invented  the  magnetic  telegraph,  which  was 
the  grandest  event  during  Polk's  administration. 

"  Question  160 :     What  was  the  first  news  sent  on  the  wire  ? 

"Answer  :     The  announcement  of  Polk's  nomination." 

1  The  Process  of  Argument.     Sidgwick.     p.  97.     A.  &  C.  Black,  1893. 


ARGUMENTATION.  227 

It  is  by  pointing  out  contradictions  that  Macaulay,  in 
his  stinging  review  of  Croker's  edition  of  BoswelU s  John- 
son chiefly  convicts  Croker  of  untrustworthiness  as  an 
editor. 

"  Mr.  Croker  tells  us  in  a  note  that  Derrick,  who  was  master 
of  the  ceremonies  at  Bath,  died  very  poor  in  1760.  We  read 
on  ;  and,  a  few  pages  later,  we  find  Dr.  Johnson  and  Boswell 
talking  of  this  same  Derrick  as  still  living  and  reigning,  as  hav- 
ing retrieved  his  character,  as  possessing  so  much  power  over 
his  subjects  at  Bath  that  his  opposition  might  be  fatal  to 
Sheridan's  lectures  on  oratory.  And  all  this  in  1763.  The 
fact  is,  that  Derrick  died  in  1769. 

"  In  one  note  we  read  that  Sir  Herbert  Croft,  the  author  of 
that  pompous  and  foolish  account  of  Young  which  appears 
among  the  'Lives  of  the  Poets,'  died  in  1805.  Another  note 
in  the  same  volume  states  that  this  same  Sir  Herbert  Croft  died 
at  Paris,  after  residing  abroad  for  fifteen  years,  on  the  27  th  of 
April,  1816."1 

Summary  of  the  First  Test. 

When,  then,  a  writer  is  asked  to  accept  evidence  that 
states  something  contrary  to  ordinary  experience,  or  that 
contradicts  other  known  facts  in  the  case,  or  contradicts 
itself,  he  has  a  right  to  refuse  to  take  it  as  proof  of  the 
truth  of  the  assertion  it  is  intended  to  support.  Evidence 
of  the  third  kind  should  be  carefully  excluded  from  his 
work,  and  the  other  two  kinds  as  well,  unless  the  witness 
is  prepared  to  show  that  ordinary  experience  in  regard  to 
his  case  has  not  been  heretofore  properly  reported,  or 
that  the  "facts"  contradicted  are  not  really  facts  at  all. 

1  Essays  on  Croker's  BoswelVs  Life  of  Johnson,  pp.  333,  334-  H.  Holt 
&  Co.,  1893. 


228  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

2.    Testing  the  Conditions  under  which  the  Statement 

WAS    MADE. 

An  objection  to  throwing  out  self -contradictory  evidence 
might  be  raised  on  the  ground  that  the  contradiction  may 
not  come  from  ignorance  but  from  the  timidity,  the  ner- 
vousness of  the  witness.  Clearly,  however,  the  evidence 
is  in  itself  of  no  value  until  the  contradiction  is  cleared 
away.  If  a  student  tries  to  examine  how  the  contradiction 
arose,  he  passes  to  a  second  test  of  evidence  —  the  condi- 
tions under  which  the  evidence  was  given. 

(a)  Is  the  Witness  Willing  or  Reluctant  ?  —  It  is  under 
this  test  that  a  writer  should  consider  whether  the 
witness  seems  ready  or  reluctant  to  give  his  testimony. 
"  A  man  stands  at  the  bar  on  a  charge  of  embezzle- 
ment. If  he  hunts  for  and  produces  all  his  books, 
bills,  and  receipts,  and  is  ready  to  go  into  the  state 
of  his  accounts  and  all  his  money  transactions,  then  the 
jury  who  deliver  a  verdict  of  'not  proven'  may  well  in 
the  eyes  of  candid  observers  show  rather  the  strength  of 
their  own  prejudices  than  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner.  But 
if  the  accused  refuse  to  produce  his  account  books  or 
ledgers,  or  at  the  moment  he  finds  himself  suspected, 
destroys  every  scrap  of  paper  which,  were  he  innocent, 
might  establish  his  innocence,  but  if  he  were  not  innocent, 
might  demonstrate  his  guilt,  then  a  verdict  of  '  not  proven  ' 
will  not  clear  his  character.  Every  one  will  feel  that  that 
conduct  which  has  saved  the  accused  from  conviction  has 
also  left  him  subject  to  irremovable  suspicion  of  guilt."  1 

(b)  Was  the  Testimony  given  under  Compulsion  f — Plainly 
enough,  forced  testimony  is  suspicious.     One  great  reason 

1  The  Verdict,  A.  Dicey,    p.  19.     Cassell  /  Co.,  1890. 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  229 

why  it  is  hard  to  write  an  accurate  account  of  the  Salem 
witchcraft  and  of  Spain  in  the  time  of  Philip  II.  is  that 
in  both  cases  torture  forced  from  agonized  men  and 
women  much  of  the  evidence  now  extant.  Under  such 
conditions  much  must  have  been  said  which  could  not 
have  been  true,  for  men  in  agony  will  say  almost  anything 
they  are  asked  to  say.  Surely  it  would  seem  apparent 
that  evidence  given  under  compulsion  must  be  handled, 
very  cautiously.  Yet  students  are  careless  in  the  matter, 
if  the  evidence  thus  extracted  favors  their  side  of  a  case. 
For  instance,  the  question  "  Was  Philip  the  Fourth's 
treatment  of  the  Templars  justifiable  ? "  involves  con- 
sideration of  evidence  wrung  from  Templars  upon  the 
rack.  The  weight  given  this  goes  far  to  settle  the  dis- 
cussion for  the  affirmative  or  the  negative.  Of  course, 
the  really  cautious  investigator  will  give  such  evidence 
but  little  credence,  unless  other  evidence,  which  can 
stand  the  tests  that  may  be  given  to  proof,  points  to  the 
same  conclusion.  The  topic  "Was  Elizabeth  justified  in 
beheading  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots  ? "  involves  considera- 
tion of  the  evidence  forced  from  Mary's  secretaries  by 
torture.  They  confessed  only  to  recant  when  free. 
Assigning  a  value  to  their  evidence  on  the  rack  becomes, 
then,  a  very  delicate  matter.  It  cannot  be  used  against 
Mary  with  any  force  unless  some  value  has  been  estab- 
lished for  it  by  other  evidence  which  has  been  carefully 
tested. 

Summary  of  the  Second  Test. 

Whatever,  then,  in  the  circumstances  under  which 
testimony  is  given  suggests  or  proves  that  the  witness 
did  not  speak  the  truth,  makes  it  suspicious,  in  the  former 
case,  or,  in  the  latter,  completely  throws  it  out. 


230  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

3.    Examining  the  Witness   Himself. 

A  third  test  is  to  examine,  not  the  statement  or  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  is  made,  but  the  witness 
himself,  to  see  if  anything  about  the  man  affects  his 
power  or  his  will  to  speak  the  truth. 

(a)  Is  the  Evidence  Prejudiced,  does  it  show  Personal 
Interest? —  In  using  this  test  a  student  should,  first  of  all, 
be  on  his  guard  against  prejudices,  personal  interest,  that 
may  affect  the  testimony  given,  For  example,  in  the 
minds  of  most  men  the  love  of  their  own  national  cus- 
toms and  methods  of  life  strongly  colors  the  glasses 
through  which  they  see  and  judge  a  foreign  land.  If, 
too,  a  writer  is  evidently  strongly  wedded  to  some  theory 
that  he  wishes  to  establish,  or  is  so  deeply  concerned  in 
the  case  as  to  have  important  issues,  himself,  at  stake  — 
his  reputation  as  scientist,  lawyer,  inventor,  etc.,  —  or  is 
closely  connected  with  the  person  under  trial,  his  testi- 
mony should  be  well  scrutinized  before  it  is  accepted. 
The  ardent  supporter  of  the  belief  that  Bacon  wrote 
Shakespeare's  plays ;  a  mill-owner  pleading  for  a  high 
tariff  ;  the  wife  of  a  man  accused  of  robbery  upholding 
his  character;  may  all  be  held  to  be  prejudiced  witnesses 
who  must  be  regarded  with  suspicion.  Indeed,  it  is  from 
a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  personal  interest  produces  a 
strong  bias  one  way  or  the  other  that  the  Argument  from 
Authority  is  most  often  questioned.  This  is  best  seen  in 
the  growing  hesitancy  to  accept  that  form  of  the  Argu- 
ment from  Authority  best  known  as  expert  testimony. 
The  following  shows  why  all  the  evidence  of  an  expert, 
and  therefore  most  of  all  his  unsupported  assertions,  must 
be  carefully  scrutinized. 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  231 

"Lord  Campbell  says  :  '  Skilled  witnesses  come  with  such 
a  bias  on  their  minds  to  support  the  cause  in  which  they  are 
embarked,  that  hardly  any  weight  should  be  given  to  their 
evidence.'  These  are  strong  words,  but  what  does  Lord 
Campbell  mean?  That  an  eminent  scientist  would  go  upon 
the  witness-stand,  and  perjure  himself  merely  because  he  has 
been  engaged  to  substantiate  a  given  proposition  ?  Not  at  all. 
.  .  .  But  the  expert  does  not  give  us  an  unbiased  opinion. 
The  reason  is  plain.  .  .  .  His  opinion  is  sought  in  advance. 
If  favorable  he  is  engaged.  When  engaged  he  becomes  a 
hired  advocate,  as  much  as  the  lawyer.  Moreover,  unlike  the 
witness  of  facts,  his  testimony  is  tinged  by  a  personal  interest. 
He  knows  that  celebrated  experts  will  oppose  his  views.  His 
reputation  is  on  trial,  as  it  were.  If  the  verdict  is  for  his  side, 
it  is  a  sort  of  juridical  upholding  of  his  position.  He  is 
therefore  arrayed  against  his  antagonists,  as  much  as  the 
lawyers  of  the  opposing  sides.  In  short,  having  once  expressed 
an  opinion,  he  will  go  to  any  extreme  almost,  to  prove  that  he 
is  right.  The  questions  asked  by  the  counsel  for  his  side,  the 
majority  of  which  he  prepares  or  dictates  himself,  are  glibly 
and  positively  answered.  But  when  the  cross-examination 
begins,  what  do  we  see  ?  An  interesting  spectacle  from 
a  psychological  standpoint.  We  see  a  man,  honest  in  his 
intentions,  standing  between  two  almost  equal  forces;  the 
love  of  himself  and  of  his  own  opinions,  on  the  one  side,  and 
upon  the  other  the  love  of  scientific  truth  which  is  inherent 
in  all  truly  professional  men.  When  a  question  is  asked,  to 
which  he  can  reply  without  injury  to  his  pronounced  opinion, 
how  eagerly  he  answers.  But  when  a  query  is  propounded 
which  his  knowledge  shows  him  in  a  moment,  indicates  a  reply 
which  his  quick  intelligence  sees  will  be  against  his  side,  what 
does  he  do  ?  We  find  that  he  fences  with  the  question.  As 
anxious  not  to  state  what  he  knows  to  be  false,  as  he  is  not  to 
injure  his  side  of  the  case,  he  parries.  He  tells  you  in  hesi- 
tating tones,  '  It  may  be  so,  in  rare  cases/  '  Other  men  have 


232  ARG  UMENTA  T/OJV. 

seen  and  reported  such  circumstances,  but  I  have  not  met 
them,'  '  It  might  be  possible  under  extraordinary  circumstances, 
but  not  in  this  case,'  and  so  on,  and  so  on,  reluctant  to  express 
himself  so  that  he  may  be  cited  afterwards."  1 

(b)  Is  the  Witness  Intellectually  Strong  ?  —  Another 
test  under  this  division  is  to  examine  the  intellectual 
capacity  of  the  witness.  At  times  the  evidence  of  & 
writer  or  thinker  must  be  thrown  out  because  of  his 
mental  dullness.  He  may  state  a  desirable  conclusion, 
but  examination  will  show  that  it  is  improperly  reached. 
The  dullness  of  Croker  in  the  following  is  Macaulay's 
reason  for  refusing  to  accept  his  statement.  A  careless 
man  writing  a  critical  article  unfavorable  to  Sir  William 
Jones  would  doubtless  like  to  use  Croker's  words,  but  any 
cautious  reader  would  at  once  see  the  valuelessness  of  his 
evidence  because  of  the  stupidity  of  the  witness. 

"  All  our  readers  have  doubtless  seen  the  two  distichs  of 
Sir  William  Jones,  respecting  the  division  of  time  of  a  lawyer. 
One  of  the  distichs  is  translated  from  some  old  Latin  lines ;  the 
other  is  original.     The  former  runs  thus : 

'  Six  hours  to  sleep,  to  law's  grave  study  six, 
Four  spend  in  prayer,  the  rest  on  nature  fix.' 

*  Rather,'  says  Sir  William  Jones, 

1  Six  hours  to  law,  to  soothing  slumbers  seven, 
Ten  to  the  world  allot,  and  all  to  heaven.' 

The  second  couplet  puzzles  Mr.  Croker  strangely.  « Sir  Wil- 
liam,' says  he,  '  has  shortened  his  day  to  twenty  three  hours, 
and  the  general  advice  of  "all  to  heaven  "  destroys  the  peculiar 
appropriation  of  a  certain  period  to  religious  exercises/  Now, 
we  did  not  think  that  it  was  in  human  dulness  to  miss  the 

1  A  Mvdern  Wizard.     R.  Ottolengui.     pp.  157-160. 


ARG  U ME  NT  A  TION.  233 

meaning  of  the  lines  so  completely.  Sir  William  distributes 
twenty-three  hours  among  various  employments.  One  hour  is 
thus  left  for  devotion.  The  reader  expects  that  the  verse  will 
end  with  'and  one  to  heaven.'  The  whole  point  of  the  lines 
consists  in  the  unexpected  substitution  of  '  all '  for  '  one.'  The 
conceit  is  wretched  enough ;  but  it  is  perfectly  intelligible,  and 
never,  we  will  venture  to  say,  perplexed  man,  woman,  or  child 
before."  l 

Under  this  subdivision  come  the  witnesses  who  mis- 
understand what  is  self-evident,  as  in  the  case  just  cited ; 
who  cannot  "  remember  truly ;  and  who  cannot  make  an 
intelligent  report  of  what  they  have  observed." 2  The 
stupidity  in  the  first  and  third  cases  will  be  apparent  on 
the  face  of  the  evidence  ;  in  the  second,  a  past  reputation 
for  a  bad  memory,  or  the  conflict  between  the  evidence 
and  that  of  a  number  of  good  witnesses  who  agree  in  all 
the  details  of  their  story,  will  show  the  faulty  memory  of 
the  witness. 

(c)  .Are  the  Physical  Powers  of  the  Witness  Sound?  — 
Not  only  may  mental  dullness  make  testimony  untrust- 
worthy, but  dullness  of  the  physical  powers  may  have  a 
like  effect. 

11  In  every  statement  of  a  witness  is  involved  the  assertion  that 
the  sense  through  which  his  information  was  derived  correctly 
represented  to  him  the  object  he  describes,  and  in  the  truthful- 
ness or  falsity  of  this  assertion  is  the  ultimate  and  crucial  test 
of  his  reliability.  This  is  a  field  of  inquiry  which  the  vigilant 
cross-examiner  will  never  neglect  to  explore.  In  ages  past  it 
may,  perhaps,  have  safely  been  assumed  that,  as  a  rule,  the 
organs   of   sensation   were   in   sound   condition,   but    in   these 

1  Essays  on  Crofter's  BoswelVs  Johnson,  p.  343.     Holt  &  Co.,  1893. 

2  Practical  Rhetoric,  Genung,  p.  409.     Ginn  &  Co. 


234  *    ARGUMENTATION. 

modern  days  no  such  presumption  can  be  entertained.  What- 
ever be  the  cause,  the  proportion  of  mankind  in  civilized 
communities  who  are  known  to  suffer  from  the  failure  of  one  or 
more  of  the  great  organs  to  perform  their  proper  functions 
seems  to  be  increasing ;  and  every  witness  who  professes  to 
have  seen  or  heard,  or  to  otherwise  have  had  a  physical  appre- 
hension of  an  object,  may  well  be  doubted  until  the  soundness 
of  the  sense  employed  has  been  established.  By  a  few  practi- 
cal experiments  from  materials  at  hand  these  faculties  of  the 
witness  may  be  tested  so  far  as  their  correctness  forms  the  basis 
of  his  evidence,  and  if  they  fail  to  undergo  the  test  the  evidence 
derived  from  them  must  fall."  1 

This  is  the  test  that  must  be  kept  constantly  in  mind 
by  those  who  investigate  such  stories  as  those  which  are 
constantly  reported  to  The  Society  for  Psychical  Research. 
Interesting  ghost  stories  have  been  found,  again  and 
again,  to  rest  on  nothing  except  weakness  of  sight,  or 
hearing,  or  touch.  Inquiries  into  railroad  accidents  have 
dragged  along  without  placing  the  responsibility  for  the 
disasters,  until  the  possibility  that  the  switch-tender  or 
the  engineer,  whose  testimony  seemed  open  to  no  one  of 
the  tests  already  explained,  might  be  color-blind  suggested 
itself  to  some  one.  A  little  experimentation  soon  showed 
that  such  was  the  case,  and  the  disaster  at  once  became 
the  fault  of  an  engineer  who  misunderstood  the  signal 
lights,  or  of  a  switchman  who  hung  out  the  wrong  lantern. 

{d)  What  is  the  Moral  Character  of  the  Witness  ?  Is 
he  Naturally  Truthful?  —  Another  test  under  this  sub- 
division is  to  examine  the  moral  uprightness  of  the 
witness.  Is  he  naturally  veracious  ?  Of  unveracious 
witnesses   "there  are   three  classes:    the  innocent   liar, 

1  Forensic  Oratory,  Robinson,  §  229. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  235 

whose  imaginations  are  so  intimately  mingled  with  his 
memories  that  he  does  not  distinguish  between  the  facts 
and  fancies  which  occupy  his  mind,  but  believes  and 
utters  both  alike  as  true  ;  the  careless >  liar,  whose  love  of 
the  pathetic  or  marvelous,  or  whose  desire  to  attract 
attention  to  himself,  overcomes  his  weak  allegiance  to  the 
truth,  and  leads  him  to  weave  facts  and  falsehoods  together 
in  his  common  conversation,  to  round  out  his  narratives  by 
the  insertion  of  invented  incidents,  to  give  dramatic  com- 
pleteness to  events  by  supplying  with  fiction  whatever 
may  be  wanting  in  the  circumstance  itself  ;  the  wilful  liar, 
who  for  some  definite  purpose  deliberately  asserts  what 
he  knows  to  be  untrue."  1 

Evidently  when  objection  is  raised  to  testimony,  not 
because  there  is  anything  wrong  with  the  evidence  itself, 
or  with  the  conditions  under  which  it  is  given,  but  solely 
on  the  ground  that  the  witness  belongs  to  one  of  the 
classes  of  liars  just  named,  at  best  only  strong  doubt  is 
thrown  on  the  testimony  in  question.  A  student  can 
say :  "  It  seems  very  probable  that  this  evidence  is 
untrustworthy,"  not  "It  is  plainly  not  to  be  trusted." 
Any  one  of  these  three  kinds  of  men  sometimes  tells  the 
truth,  and  the  case  in  point  may  be  one  of  these  rare 
occasions.  Therefore,  it  becomes  necessary  further  to 
examine  this  suspicious  evidence,  to  try  to  make  some  of 
the  other  tests  applicable  to  it. 

"The  innocent,  the  imaginative  liar  is  generally  endowed 
with  no  remarkable  acuteness,  and,  being  honest  in  his  inten- 
tions, readily  follows  wherever  a  kindly  questioner  may  wish  to 
lead  him.  Most  of  the  facts  concerning  which  he  testifies 
made,  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence,  no  powerful  impression 

1  Forensic  Oratory,  Robinson,  §  240. 


236  ARG  UMEN  TA  TION. 

on  his  mind,  and  have  not  since  been  verified  by  personal 
examination  or  external  authority.  When  he  was  called  upon 
to  state  them,  at  the  instance  of  the  adverse  party,  the  natural 
desire  to  serve  a  friend  stimulated  his  imagination  as  well  as 
his  memory,  and  the  story  he  related  was  the  net  result  of  fancy 
and  recollection.  The  cross-examiner  may  take  advantage  of 
the  same  docility  in  order  to  exhibit  his  liability  to  self-decep-. 
tion.  If  circumstances  which  they  know  did  not  occur,  but 
which  are  in  keeping  with  the  other  parts  of  the  transaction  as 
narrated  by  him,  are  now  suggested  to  him,  his  imagination  is 
very  likely  to  insert  them  into  the  picture  which  his  memory 
preserves,  and  he  will  express  his  certainty  of  their  existence 
with  as  much  positiveness  as  that  of  any  other  matter  to  which 
he  has  testified.  This  process  may  be  indefinitely  repeated, 
until  the  jury  see  that  he  is  willing  to  adopt  and  swear  to  any 
details  which  are  not  manifestly  improbable,  or  until  his  con- 
tradiction of  other  witnesses,  or  of  former  portions  of  his  own 
evidence,  destroys  their  faith  in  his  intelligence  or  honesty. 
An  alternative,  or  sometimes  an  additional,  mode  of  cross- 
examining  this  witness  is  to  compel  him  to  narrate  the  transac- 
tion piecemeal,  beginning  in  the  middle  of  its  history  and 
skipping  from  one  portion  to  another,  reversing  or  confusing  its 
chronological  order.  Variations  and  omissions  will  probably 
result,  which,  if  not  significant  enough  to  discredit  the  witness, ' 
can  be  so  easily  magnified  by  the  suggestions  of  the  cross- 
examiner  as  to  make  it  evident  to  all  beholders  that  the  witness 
has  no  actual  knowledge  or  convictions  of  his  own,  but  simply 
reflects  impressions  created  by  his  fancy^roTfi"within,  or  by  the 
promptings  of  his  questioner  from  without.  The  exposure  of 
the  careless  liar  is  a  work  of  little  difficulty.  The  cross- 
examiner  needs  but  to  apply  the  goad,  an^l  give  him  rein.  The 
same  qualities  which  mislead  him  in  his  statements  in  regard 
to  one  event  operate  on  all  the  occurrences  of  life,  and  in  his 
mouth  'a  little  one'  always  becomes  '^thousand,'  and  '  two 
roistering  youths '  develop  into  '  eleven  men  in  buckram  '  and 


ARGUMENTATION.  237 

three  in  Kendall  green.' 1  Let  fitting  incidents,  whose  details 
are  already  accurately  known,  be  but  presented  to  him  for 
description,  and  his  palpable  additions  and  exaggerations  will 
complete  his  ruin."  2 

Evidently  the  testimony  if  these  twt  kinds  ff  liars  may, 
by  skillful  treatment,  be  brought  under  the  decidedly  final 
test  of  self-contradictionArt/Vi 

"The  wilful  liar,  though  probably  a  rare  phenomenon, 
sometimes  appears,  and  when  he  does  appear  generally 
eludes  or  baffles  all  the  artifices  of  the  cross-examiner."3 
In  handling  the  evidence  of  a  man  considered  to  be  a 
wilful  liar  it  is,  therefore,  best  to  remember  that  this  class 
of  persons  is  "always  animated  by  a  definite  purpose." 
The  point  is,  then,  to  find  out  what  the  man's  motive  is, 
and  to  what  extent  his  will  is  under  its  control.  This 
means,  of  course,  that  for  the  moment  attention  is  directed 
to  new  evidence.  Plainly,  the  effort  is  to  bring  the 
evidence  under  the  test  of  personal  prejudice,  personal 
interest. 

i 

Summary. 

Thus  far  the  following  tests  have  been  considered: 
three  as  to  the  statement  itself, — it  must  not  contradict 
well-established  human  experience,  or  the  other  well- 
established  facts  in  the  case,  it  must  not  contradict  itself  ; 
two  as  to  the  conditions   under  which  the  testimony  is 

1  Professor  Robinson  here  refers  to  Falstaff's  story  of  the  robbers  who 
set  upon  him.  It  admirably  illustrates  the  work  of  the  careless  liar.  King 
Henry  IV,  Pt.  I,  Act  II,  Sc.  4. 

2  Forensic  Oratory,  Robinson,  §§  240,  241. 

3  Idem,  §  241. 


238  ARGUMENTATION. 

given,  —  the  witness  should  not  give  evidence  reluctantly, 
nor  should  he  be  forced  in  his  testimony  ;  four  as  to 
the  witness,  —  he  must  be  free  from  prejudice  or  personal 
interest,  he  must  be  intelligent,  his  senses  must  be  reliable, 
he  himself  must  stand  in  the  community  as  an  honest 
thinker  ancrliver,  who  shuns  the  *osses  of  imagination. 

Three  Kinds  of  Evidence  which  are  in  themselves 
Trustworthy. 

Even  as  the  kinds  of  evidence  just  considered  are  from 
their  very  nature  suspicious  or  untrustworthy,  three  other 
kinds  from  their  very  nature  commend  themselves  to  a 
reader  or  hearer.  These  are:  (i)  Undesigned  Testimony, 
—  what  a  writer  or  speaker  gives  inadvertently  or  inci- 
dentally, with  no  thought  for  its  bearing  on  the  point  in 
discussion  ;  (2)  Negative  Testimony,  —  "  the  failure  of  the 
witness  to  mention  a  fact  so  striking  that  he  must  have 
noticed  it  had  it  occurred";  and  (3)  Concessions, — the 
admission  that  something  which  makes  against  the  writ- 
er's or  the  speaker's  case  is  true.1 

1.   Undesigned  Testimony. 

An  ardent  philatelist  is  trying  to  demonstrate  to  some 
friend  how  widespread  is  the  present  interest  in  collecting 
stamps,  and  how  eager  the  collectors  are  to  gather  speci- 
mens. He  remembers  the  following  from  Henry  Norman's 
The  Far  East,  and  quotes  it :  "  Whenever  Macao  desires 
a  lift  for  its  treasury  it  is  able  to  secure  it  by  abandoning 
one  set  of  stamps  and  issuing  another,  when  philatelists 

1  The  divisions  given  in  this  paragraph  follow  roughly  those  of  Professor 

Genung,  Outlines  of  Rhetoric,  p.  410. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  239 

from  all  over  the  world  eagerly  add  it  to  their  inflated 
collections.  Our  consul  declares  that  he  has  '  endless 
applications  from  different  countries  for  stamps  of  this 
colony.'  "  x  Both  the  philatelist  and  his  friend  will  feel 
the  convincingness  of  this  testimony,  arising  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  originally  given  to  illustrate,  not  anything 
about  philately,  but  what  makeshifts  Macao  uses  to  gather 
her  revenue.  This  fact  frees  it  from  any  suspicion  of 
prejudice  on  the  subject  under  discussion. 


2.    Negative  Testimony. 

It  is  negative  testimony  on  which  a  critic  depends  in 
the  following  extract  from  a  review  of  a  book  purporting 
to  be  founded  on  the  Journals,  Letters,  and  Conversations 
of  the  Princess  Lamballe,  a  confidential  friend  of  Marie 
Antoinette:  — 

"  What  evidence  have  we,  then,  that  we  are  here  reading  the 
ipsissima  verba  of  Marie  Antoinette's  friend  and  confidante  ? 
In  trying  to  answer  this  question  one  gets  but  little  assistance 
from  the  Princess's  more  important  biographers.  Two  full  Lives 
are  known  to  me  •.  .  .  These  two  Lives  are,  the  one  by  M.  de 
Lescure,  published  in  i860,  and  the  second  by  M.  Bertin,  pub- 
lished in  1888,  of  which  the  second  edition,  published  in  1894, 
is  before  me.  In  neither,  that  I  can  trace,  is  there  the  slightest 
reference  to  the  Memoirs  now  in  question,  though  M.  Bertin's 
book,  more  particularly,  is  a  very  careful  piece  of  work.  Mr. 
Austin  Dobson,  again,  who  is  not  only  a  finished  poet,  but  the 
most  accurate  of  men,  never  mentions  them  in  his  short  mono- 
graph.    All  this  silence  is  ominous. 


»  2 


1  The  Far  East,  Henry  Norman,  p.  188.     T.  F.  Unwin,  1895. 

2  The  Academy,  July  27,  1895,  p.  66. 


240  ARGUMENTATION. 


3.    Hurtful  Admissions. 

In  the  following  extract  from  The  Mill  Mystery,  by  Anna 
Katherine  Green,  the  evidence  as  to  a  date  commends 
itself  because  it  is  an  admission  hurtful  to  the  witness. 
Rhoda  Colwell  has  been  giving  evidence  which  seems  to 
show  that  Guy  Pollard  was  the  murderer  of  the  Reverend 
Mr.  Barrows  :  — 

"'Pardon  me,'  her  voice  broke  in  again,  'you  have  heard 
what  I  know.'  ...  'I  hold  you  tight  —  so  tight,'  she  added, 
shaking  her  close-shut  hand,  '  that  I  doubt  if  even  your  life 
could  escape  should  I  choose  to  remember  in  court  what  I  have 
remembered  before  you  two  here  to-day.'  .  .  . 

"  '  You  are  not  going,'  were  the  words  with  which  he  [Guy  Pol- 
lard] broke  the  almost  intolerable  suspense  of  the  moment ;  '  at 
least,  not  till  you  have  given  us  the  date  of  this  remarkable 
experience  of  yours.' 

"  '  The  date  ?  '  she  repeated  icily.  '  What  day  was  it  that 
Mr.  Barrows  was  found  in  the  vat  ? '  she  inquired,  turning 
to  me  with  an  indifferent  look. 

"  His  hand  fell  on  her  arm  like  iron. 

"  '  You  need  not  appeal  to  Miss  Sterling,'  he  remarked.  '  I 
am  asking  you  this  question,  and  I  am  not  a  man  to  be  balked 
or  frightened  by  you  when  my  life  itself  is  at  stake.  What 
night  was  it  on  which  you  saw  me  place  Mr.  Barrows  in  the 
vat  ?     I  command  you  to  tell  me,  or  — '  .  .  . 

"  She  chose  to  succumb,  .  .  .  and  gasped  out :  '  It  was  on  a 
night  in  August  —  the  seventeenth,  I  think.  I  wish  you  and 
your  brother  much  joy  of  the  acknowledgment.' 

"  He  did  not  answer,  only  dropped  her  arm,  and,  looking  at 
me,  remarked  : 

"  '  I  think  that  puts  a  different  face  upon  the  matter.' 


ARGUMENTATION.  241 

"  It  did,  indeed.  For  Mr.  Barrows  had  only  been  dead  four 
days,  and  to-day  was  the  twenty-eighth  of  September." 1 

The  Degree  of   Convincingness  of  these  Three  Kinds 
of  Evidence. 

It  would  seem  that  the  convincingness  in  themselves 
of  these  three  kinds  of  evidence  is  somewhat  different. 
What  a  man  admits,  much  against  his  will,  that  is  hurt- 
ful to  his  case  may  evidently  be  taken  for  truth.  If, 
however,  a  student  uses  a  bit  of  undesigned  testimony,  he 
must  feel  sure  that  the  witness  is  veracious,  that  what  he 
says  is  true.  Comparison  of  the  three  illustrations  just 
given  will  show  that  one  witness  giving  negative  testi- 
mony is  not  so  convincing  as  one  witness  giving  unde- 
signed testimony  or  making  a  hurtful  admission.  A 
writer  may  be  sure  that  his  witness  giving  negative 
testimony  is  veracious,  but  it  is  even  then  perfectly 
possible  that  there  may  have  been  oversight.  If  only 
M.  Lescure  were  cited  in  the  second  illustration  given 
above,  the  negative  testimony,  though  it  would  commend 
itself,  would  not  be  unquestionable.  When,  however,  the 
critic  shows  that  several  biographers,  and  these  of  the 
best,  fail  to  mention  the  "  Memoirs,"  the  negative  testi- 
mony becomes  practically  convincing.  Negative  testi- 
mony, then,  to  be  convincing  in  itself,  should  be  given  by 
several  veracious  witnesses.  In  other  words,  of  these 
three  kinds  of  evidence,  although  all  three  are  self- 
commendatory,  only  hurtful  admissions  are  convincing 
without  the  successful  application  of  one  of  the  other 
tests  of  evidence  already  considered. 

1  The  Mill  Mystery,  A.  K.  Green,  pp.  192-195.  Knickerbocker  Novels, 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons. 


242  ARGUMENTATION. 

External  And  Internal  Tests. 

Each  of  the  tests  of  evidence  considered  thus  far 
questions  the  sanity,  the  good  faith,  or  the  good  judgment 
of  the  witness,  sometimes  more  than  one  of  these.  These 
tests  examine  the  evidence  externally.  They  consider  the 
man  who  gives  the  testimony,  the  conditions  under  which 
it  was  given,  whether  the  evidence  as  a  whole  coincides 
with  other  testimony  known  to  be  true,  whether  it  is  self- 
contradictory  ;  they  do  not  say :  "  Is  there  anything 
faulty  in  the  process  of  thought,  the  logic  that  has  pro- 
duced the  opinion?"  If  the^^did,  they  would  be  not 
external,  but  internal  tests.  It  may  seem,  off-hand,  that 
there  is  one  exception  to  this  statement,  —  the  test  of  self- 
contradiction.  However,  this  does  not  analyze  the  logical 
process  involved  in  the  evidence,  but  simply,  looking  at  the 
face  of  the  statement,  points  out  that  an  assertion  made 
in  one  place  is  contradicted  in  another.  Evidently  the 
witness  is  untrustworthy.  No  question,  however,  is  at 
the  moment  asked  as  to  the  process  of  thought  by  which 
he  reached  the  statement.  The  external  tests  ask:  "  Is 
there  good  reason  to  think  that  the  evidence,  if  internally 
examined,  will  be  found  to  be  logically  unsound  ?  "  The 
internal  tests  ask  rather:  "Just  what  is  the  logical 
unsoundness  of  the  argument  ?  " 

Fallacies  and  their  Dangers. 

The  examination  of  evidence  for  internal  weaknesses  is 
a  search  for  fallacies.  By  a  fallacy  is  meant  "any 
unsound  mode  of  arguing  which  appears  to  demand  our 
conviction,  and  to  be  decisive .  of  the  question  in  hand, 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  243 

when  in  fairness  it  is  not." 1  It  is  very  necessary  in 
argument  to  guard  carefully  against  such  unsound  reason- 
ing, for  not  only  may  an  opponent  intentionally  try  to 
mislead  by  unsound  methods  of  reasoning,  or — what  is  far 
more  probable — may  use  them  unawares,  but  any  worker  in 
Argumentation  with  the  best  of  intentions  may  himself 
unconsciously  slip  into  them.  A  fallacy  is  very  often 
extremely  hard  to  detect,  for  rarely  is  it  self-evident. 
Generally  it  is  imbedded  in  a  mass  of  other  entirely  trust- 
worthy material.  It  may  be  but  part  of  a  sentence  in  a 
volume  of  many  pages,  yet  if  it  exists  it  is  fatal  to  the 
ultimate  convincingness  of  the  argument.  "As  in  a 
calculation,  one  single  figure  incorrectly  stated  will  enable 
us  to  arrive  at  any  result  whatever,  though  every  other 
figure,  and  the  whole  of  the  operations,  be  correct,  so, 
a  single  false  assumption  in  any  process  of  reasoning, 
though  every  other  be  true,  will  enable  us  to  draw  what 
conclusion  we  please  ;  and  the  greater  the  number  of 
assumptions,  the  more  likely  it  is  that  the  false  one  will 
pass  unnoticed."  The  opponents  of  two  recent  books  of 
wide  circulation,  Mr.  Kidd's  Social  Evolution,  and  Dr. 
Nordau's  Degeneratio7i>  insist,  not  so  much  that  most  of 
the  conclusions  in  each  book  are  wrong,  as  that  each  book 
rests  for  its  force  on  a  fundamental  fallacy,  which,  if  not 
noted,  makes  all  the  chapters  drawn  from  it  easy  of 
acceptance.  Evidently,  then,  it  is  important  to  know 
what  are  the  chief  kinds  of  fallacies,  and  how  to  recognize 
and  avoid  them. 

1  Quoted  on  p.  168  of  Elements  of  Logic.     Whately.      Sheldon  &  Co., 
1869. 


244  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

Attempted  Divisions  of  Fallacies. 

In  the  past  repeated  attempts  have  been  made  to 
classify  definitively  the  different  kinds  of  fallacies,  but 
experience  has  shown  that  a  satisfactory  hard  and  fast 
division  of  them  has  not  yet  been  found.  The  divisions 
overlap,  some  of  the  fallacies  falling  into  one  or  another 
class  as  the  student  looks  at  them  from  one  or  another 
point  of  view.  The  rough  division  used  in  the  following 
pages,  based  on  that  of  Dr.  Whately,1  is  distinctly  open 
to  the  objection  just  stated,  but  it  is  given  in  the  hope 
that  it  may  help  the  young  student  of  Argumentation  to 
recognize  the  fallacies  most  common  in  the  work  of  college 
students  and  in  current  publications. 

A  Conclusion  is  not  Necessarily  True  or  False  because 
a  Premise  is.  A  Premise  is  not  Necessarily  True 
or  False  because  a  Conclusion  is. 

In  general,  in  considering  evidence,  a  student  should 
remember  that  it  is  always  fallacious  to  assume  that  be- 
cause one  of  the  statements  (premises)  from  which  a  man 
draws  his  conclusion  is  clearly  false  or  true  his  conclusion 
is  necessarily  false  or  true,  or  to  assume'that  because  the 
conclusion  is  false  or  correct  a  premise  is.  Between  a 
premise  and  its  conclusion  may  lie  so  many  opportunities 
for  error  that  it  is  unsafe  to  assume  anything  about  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  one  from  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
other.  Only  when  examination  has  shown  that  a  premise 
is  correct,  that  a  conclusion  is  the  natural  consequence 
from  its  premises,  should  statements  be  made  about  their 

1  Elements  of  Logic,  pp.  190-250. 


ARGUMENTATION.  245 

truth  or  falseness  and  their  relations  to  one  another.  Much 
of  the  firm  adherence  of  each  religious  sect  to  its  particular 
ideas  rests  on  its  knowledge  that  though  it  holds  different 
views  from  other  sects  it  bases  its  conclusions  on  prem- 
ises common  to  and  admitted  by  all.  Each  sect  assumes, 
however,  that  since  a  premise  of  its  argument  is  correct 
the  conclusion  must  be  also.  This  fallacy  underlies  much 
charitable  work.  People  have  too  often  J^elieved  that 
because  some  charitable  scheme  was  based  on  the  unim- 
peachable premise,  "We  should  aid  the  poor  and  needy  in 
times  of  trial,"  their  particular  scheme,  their  conclusion 
from  the  premises,  should  be  carried  out.  It  is,  however, 
no  uncommon  experience  for  a  man  to  hold  an  absurd 
opinion  which  he  has  drawn  from  entirely  correct  prem- 
ises, or  a  perfectly  correct  opinion  drawn  from  absurd  prem- 
ises. That  is,  his  argument  is  a  non  sequittir — the  name 
applied  to  an  argument  whenever  the  conclusion  does  not 
logically  follow  from  the  two  statements  from  which  it  is 
drawn.  A  writer  should  be  content  in  such  cases  simply 
to  point  out  that  the  conclusion  does  not  follow  from  the 
premises  or  that  a  premise  or  the  premises  are  incorrect. 
Doing  this,  he  points  out  a  fallacy  in  his  opponent's  work, 
renders  it  worthless,  and  avoids  slipping,  from  excess  of 
zeal,  into  one  of  the  fallacies  just  mentioned. 

What  kinds  of  fallacies  besides  these  will  a  careful 
student  find  in  evidence  ?  Certainly,  the  moment  a  reader 
begins  to  consider  fallacies,  the  truth  of  what  was  said  in 
Chapter  II.  as  to  the  importance  of  definition  in  Argu- 
mentation is  emphasized.  A  very  large  class  of  fallacies 
arises  from  an  ignorant  or  a  careless  use  of  terms  or 
phrases.  The  reader  saw  in  Chapter  II.  that  careful  defi- 
nition avoids  the   confusions,  the  argumentative  errors, 


246  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

intentional  or  unintentional,  that  may  result  from  using 
words  in  themselves  ambiguous,  ignorantly,  carelessly,  or 
with  unfair  purpose.  Whenever  in  an  argument  words  or 
phrases  occur  which  are  ambiguous  or  are  used  in  an  in- 
correct sense,  they  will,  if  unexplained,  produce  confusion, 
intentional  or  unintentional,  will  lead  to  "  unsound  modes 
of  reasoning"  —  in  a  word,  to  fallacies. 

Fallacies  Arising  from  Lack  of  Definition. 

i  .  Words  with  Two  Common  Meanings  left  Undefined.  — 
On  page  61  the  reader  saw  that  the  topic,  "  Was  the  treat- 
ment of  the  American  Loyalists  by  the  Whigs  justifiable?" 
is  liable  to  lead  to  much  unsound  reasoning.  The  ques- 
tion was  meant  to  ask  whether  the  treatment  of  the 
American  Loyalists  by  the  English  Whigs  was  justifiable. 
A  student  might  perfectly  well  try  to  prove  the  affirma- 
tive true  on  the  ground  that  the  treatment  of  some 
American  Loyalists  by  a  party  of  Whigs  was  justifiable, 
and  his  logic  would  be  unassailable,  except  on  the  ground 
that  his  Whigs  were  the  Americans  in  rebellion  against 
Great  Britain,  not  the  English  Whigs  referred  to  in  the 
question.  Naturally  the  American  Loyalists  could  hardly 
expect  from  the  rebellious  Americans  against  whom  they 
had  taken  sides  what  they  had  a  right  to  expect  from  the 
Whigs  in  England,  who  were  aiding  in  putting  down  the 
Revolution.  A  fallacy  is  very  liable,  then,  to  result  when 
an  ambiguous  term  is  left  unexplained. 

2.  Using  at  Will  Different  Meanings  of  the  Same  Word. 
—  Another  form  of  this  fallacy  which  arises  from  the  use 
of  an  ambiguous  word  or  phrase,  is  to  employ  the  same 
word  in  different  parts  of  an  argument  in  two  different 


ARGUMENTATION.  247 

senses.  For  instance,  a  Harvard  student  arguing  once 
on  the  topic  of  his  choice,  "  Should  Art  Museums  be  open 
to  the  Public  on  Sunday  ? "  wrote  ten  to  a  dozen  pages  of 
rather  rambling  matter,  reducible  to  these  statements : 
"  The  world  consists  of  the  cultivated  .few  and  a  mob.  A 
mob  will  generally  destroy  a  work  of  art.  Therefore  the 
Museums  should  be  opened  only  to  the  cultivated  few. 
Consequently,  since  the  cultivated  few  have  leisure  to 
attend  Museums  on  week  days,  it  is  not  necessary  to  open 
them  on  Sundays."  Here  the  student  used  "  mob "  in 
the  first  sentence  merely  to  signify  the  mass  of  the  un- 
educated or  partially  educated,  the  majority  of  humanity  ; 
in  the  second  he  shifted  the  meaning  to  "a  crowd  of  over- 
excited men  whose  passions  have  overcome  their  better 
judgments." 

3.  Words  used  as  Identical  because  they  look  Alike. — 
Another  student  recently  wrote  a  theme  to  prove  that 
college  men  should  vote  the  Democratic  ticket.  His  six- 
page  argument  could  be  reduced  to  this:  "It  is  a  gen- 
erally accepted  principle  in  this  country  that  he  is  the 
best  citizen  who  is  the  most  democratic.  Now  he  who  con- 
sistently holds  to  the  principles  of  one  of  the  two  great 
national  parties  is  a  thorough  Democrat.  Therefore,  all 
men  should  vote  the  Democratic  ticket."  Plainly  the 
difficulty  here  is  with  democratic  and  Democrat.  The 
adjective  means  broad-minded,  liberal,  ready  to  do  one's 
part  for  the  welfare  of  the  State,  and  this  the  writer  uses 
correctly.  The  noun  is  commonly  used  simply  in  opposi- 
tion to  Republican,  to  mean  one  who  is  a  member  of  the 
Democratic  party,  who  believes  in  its  platform  as  formu- 
lated at  its  national  convention.  This  meaning  the  writer 
ignores,  treating  Democrat  as  if  it  meant  the  same  as 


248  ARGUMENTATION. 

democratic.  Here  the  student  has  not  used  just  the  same 
word  in  two  different  senses,  but  thinking  because  the 
two  words  looked  alike  they  must  mean  the  same  thing, 
he  has  treated  them  as  though  they  were  identical  in 
meaning.  In  our  language  with  its  two  sources,  Anglo- 
Saxon  and  Latin,  such  confidence  in  resemblances  be- 
tween words  is  ill-founded.  Many  look  alike  that  come 
from  entirely  different  sources  and  should  carry  entirely 
different  ideas. 

4.  Confusion  of  the  Etymological  and  the  Common  Mean- 
ings of  a  Word.  —  Still  another  form  of  the  fallacy  of 
ambiguity  arises  when  a  word  is  used  without  explanation 
that  has  both  an  everyday  meaning  and  one,  more  rarely 
used,  from  its  derivation.  We  often  hear  the  saying, 
"The  exception  proves  the  rule,"  given  as  proof  that  the 
exception  to  the  rule  is  what  shows  the  rule  to  be  correct 
—  perfect  nonsense.  Here  the  speaker  takes  proves  for 
our  word  proves,  when  in  this  case  it  is  used  in  its  strictly 
etymological  meaning  derived  from  the  Latin  probo,  to 
test,  and  the  meaning  is,  "The  exception  tests  the  rule." 

5.  Unexplained  Words  used  with  Meanings  which  do  not- 
belojig  to  them.  —  Dr.  Whately  gives  as  an  example  of  the 
fallacy  just  considered  what  seems  even  better  to  illus- 
trate using  words  with  meanings  which  do  not  belong  to 
them.  He  considers  the  argument  sometimes  based  on 
the  often  used  word  representative.  "  Assuming  that  its 
right  meaning  must  correspond  exactly  with  the  strict 
sense  of  the  verb  <  represent,'  the  Sophist  persuades  the 
multitude  that  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  is 
bound  to  be  guided  in  all  points  by  the  opinion  of  his 
constituents :  and,  in  short,  to  be  merely  their  spokesman  : 
whereas  law,  and  custom,  which  in  this  case  may  be  con- 


ARGUMENTATION.  249 

sidered  as  fixing  the  meaning  of  the  term,  require  no  such 
thing,  but  enjoin  a  representative  to  act  according  to  the 
best  of  his  own  judgment,  and  on  his  own  responsibility."  1 
Plainly  enough,  in  such  cases  as  this,  whether  the  in- 
correct use  be  intentional  or  unintentional,  a  careful 
definition  of  the  word  or  phrase  on  which  the  argument 
turns  will  demonstrate  the  fallacious  use  made  of  the  word. 

Summary. 

When  a  reader  remembers  that  these  ambiguities  of 
phrase,  these  incorrect  uses,  are  likely  to  occur  not  merely 
in  the  main  thesis  but  in  any  one  of  the  very  many  sen- 
tences that  make  up  an  argument,  and  that  they  con- 
stantly combine  with  other  fallacies  still  to  be  mentioned, 
he  must  see  how  important  it  is  that  he  should  be  on  his 
guard  against  the  fallacies  arising  from  these  sources. 
Let  him  remember  that  whenever  he  uses  a  word  or 
phrase  which  may  be  ambiguous,  he  should  define  it ;  that 
whenever  his  opponent  or  even  his  ally  uses  one,  he  should 
insist  on  a  definition  of  it ;  that  he  should  never  use 
words  or  phrases  in  senses  which  do  not  belong  to  them  ; 
that  he  should  never  allow  an  opponent  or  an  ally  to  use 
words  incorrectly.  Definition  is  either  the  prevention  or 
the  destruction  of  fallacies  of  this  class. 

v- 

The   Fallacy,  Begging  the  Question,   Petitio  Principii. 

A  second  kind  of  fallacy,  by  no  means  uncommon  in 
the  work  of  beginners  in  Argumentation,  is  Begging  the 
Question,  Petitio  Principii.  In  this  fallacy  a  student, 
consciously    or  unconsciously,    either   (i)   makes  an   un- 

1  Elements  of  Logic,  Whately,  p.  197. 


250  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

supported  assumption  which  is  the  same  as  or  results 
from  the  conclusion  he  is  to  prove  true,  or  (2)  asserts 
unqualifiedly  the  truth  of  a  premise  which  itself  needs 
support. 

1.    Assuming  the   Truth  of  an    Unsupported  Assumption 
which  is  Equivalent  to  the  Conclusion  or  Results  from  it. 

In  the  argument  between  Thwackum  and  Square  on 
"  Can  honor  exist  independent  of  religion  ? ' '  Thwackum  begs 
the  question  in  the  premise  of  his  argument  which  defines 
honor.  He  says  it  means,  "That  which  cannot  exist 
independent  of  the  tenets  of  the  Church  of  England, 
i.e.,  religion."  Grant  this  premise,  and  you  grant  the 
whole  case,  for  it  is  nothing  but  the  desired  conclusion 
in  an  expanded  form.  In  a  similar  way  the  writer  on  the 
question,  "  Are  the  enjoyment  and  the  cultivation  of  the 
Fine  Arts  essential  to  the  highest  type  of  civilization  ? " 
begs  the  question  in  his  premise  which  defines  his  use  of 
"civilization,"  —  "The  sum  of  the  material  and  moral 
acquisitions  of  a  race,  these  qualities  being  embodied  in 
the  Fine  Arts."  Grant  this  definition,  and  you  grant  the 
conclusion  sought,  for  they  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 
Evidently,  if  there  can  be  no  civilization  without  Fine 
Art,  it  is  clear  that  in  the  highest  type  of  civilization 
the  enjoyment  and  cultivation  of  the  Fine  Arts  must  be 
present. 

The  following  illustrates  begging  the  question  by  taking 
as  a  premise  what  is  true  only  if  the  conclusion  has 
already  been  granted  to  be  correct.  A  reader  of  the  book 
mentioned  p.  239,  which  purports  to  be  the  "  Memoirs  " 
of  the  Princess  Lamballe,  argues  that  it  is  genuine  because 
it  records  such  and  such  facts,],- jtjie  reality  of  these  facts 


ARG UMENTA  TION.  25 1 

resting  on  the  evidence  of  the  "  Memoirs  "  in  question. 
Such  argument  is  by  no  means  uncommon  when  college 
students  treat  questions  like  these :  "  Was  John  the  Author 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  ?  "  "  Did  Moses  write  the  Penta- 
teuch ? " 

These  forms  of  Petitio  Principii  are  often  spoken  of  as 
arguing  in  a  circle.  A  moment's  thought  will  show  that 
each  of  the  illustrations  of  begging  the  question  given 
thus  far  shows  a  complete  circle  in  the  argument. 

2.     Undue  Assumption  of  a  Premise  as  True. 

(a)  Stating  without  Support  zvhat  should  be  proved  True. 
—  The  simplest  form  of  begging  the  question,  by  undue 
assumption  of  a  premise,  the  forensic  on  the  Beaconsfield 
topic,  quoted  pp.  182-185,  illustrates.  After  showing  that 
whatever  may  be  considered  the  "Key  to  the  East" 
should  not  be  in  hands  hostile  to  England,  the  writer 
said  triumphantly:  "Lord  Beaconsfield"  (certainly  a 
prejudiced  witness)  "  said  that  Constantinople  is  the  Key 
to  the  East,"  and  then  drew  the  conclusion:  "Therefore 
it  should  not  pass  into  the  hands  of  Russia,  a  power  hos- 
tile to  England's  interests."  What  at  the  moment 
demanded  proof  was  that  Constantinople  is  unquestionably 
the  "Key  to  the  East,"  and  until  the  writer  showed  this, 
he  made  an  undue  assumption  and  "begged  the  ques- 
tion." 

(b)    Tzuo  Fallacies  arising  from  an  Attempt  to  find 
a  Cause  for  an  Effect. 

I.  Mistaking  a  Sign  for  a  Cause.  —  Two  other  forms 
of  undue  assumption  of  a  premise,  begging  the  question, 


252  ARG  U ME  NT  A  TION 

arise  from  attempts  to  find  a  cause  for  known  results. 
The  first  form  of  this  is  to  mistake  a  sign  of  the  presence 
of  the  result  in  question  for  a  cause  of  it.  For  instance, 
a  large  part  of  the  present  discussion  about  free  silver 
rests  on  the  idea  that  since  there  is  usually  much  silver 
when  there  is  wealth  in  a  country,  much  silver  is  the 
cause  of  wealth.  Really,  it  is  not  the  silver  that  makes 
the  wealth,  but  the  wealth  that  demands  much  silver  as 
a  convenient  medium  of  exchange.1  Technically  this 
fallacy  has  been  known  as  non  causa  pro  causa. 

II.  Post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc.  —  Another  very  common 
form  of  undue  assumption  is  to  consider  that,  since  two 
phenomena  follow  one  another,  one  must  be  cause  and 
the  other  effect.  This  is  perhaps  the  commonest  form 
of  fallacy.  It  is  a  stock-in-trade  of  the  demagogife.  Point- 
ing to  desirable  economic  or  political  conditions  which 
have  just  begun  to  appear,  he  names  some  legislative 
measure  of  his  party  some  time  precedent,  and  declares 
that  the  desirable  results  come  from  it.  It  is  upon  this 
fallacy  that  much  of  the  success  of  patent  medicines 
depends.  A  man  has  been  unwell.  He  takes  some 
much-advertised  nostrum,  and  after  a  time  he  is  better. 
He  and  the  public  declare  that  surely  the  medicine  cured 
him.  A  college  student,  debating  the  question,  "  Is  Civi- 
lization Harmful  to  the  Indian?"  developed  this  line  of 
argument :  "  The  Zunis  are  the  most  civilized  of  the 
Indian  tribes;  the  Zunis  are  dying  off  fastest;  therefore 
civilization  is  destructive  to  the  Indian."  Recently,  one 
of  the  Boston  daily  papers  gave  considerable  space  to  a 
discussion  of  the  value  of  vivisection  and  the  extent  to 
which  it  is  practiced  in  this  country.     At  this  time  the 

1  Elements  of  Logic,  Whately,  p.  224. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  253 

following  illustration  of  this  fallacy  appeared  in  one  of  its 
columns:  — 

"  And  that  animals  are  systematically  stolen  for  this  purpose 
[vivisection]  there  is  some  ground  for  belief.  In  one  day  the 
advertising  columns  of  a  single  daily  paper  had  six  advertise- 
ments of  lost  dogs.  An  Irish  setter  was  lost  from  Dorchester ; 
another  Irish  setter  from  Winthrop  ;  a  little  fox  terrier  from 
Hingham  ;  a  large  smooth-coated  St.  Bernard  from  Roxbury ; 
a  small  Skye  terrier  from  Watertown,  and  a  brindle  and  white 
bull  terrier  from  West  Roxbury.  Of  course  these  advertise- 
ments could  have  represented  but  a  proportion  of  the  dogs 
'lost'  in  and  around  Boston  on  that  day." 

Many  of  our  common  superstitions  rest  on  the  fallacy 
that  what  happens  after  an  event  is  probably  caused  by  it. 
What  child  has  not  heard  some  one  say,  after  a  day  of  petty 
annoyances:  "Well,  what  could  I  expect?  I  got  out  of 
bed  on  the  wrong  side  this  morning,"  or,  "It  is  always 
the  way.  After  I  started  from  home  I  went  back  three 
times  for  things  I  had  forgotten.  That  always  brings  bad 
luck."  All  these  illustrations  show  what  logicians  have 
called  the  fallacy  Post  hoc  ergo  pivpter  hoc. 

The  Source  of  these  Last  Two  Fallacies.  —  In  this 
fallacy  and  the  closely  allied  form  illustrated  just  before 
it,  Non  causa  pro  causa,  thinkers  fail  to  remember  two 
ideas  that  should  never  be  forgotten  when  a  cause  for 
a  result  is  named:  they  must  make  sure  (i)  that  there 
is  some  causal  connection  between  the  two;  and  (2)  that 
the  cause  assigned  is  sufficient  to  produce  the  result 
named.  Since  they  assume  just  what  they  should  prove 
true,  they  really  beg  the  question.  These  writers  should 
have  remembered,  also:  (1)  that  (a)  because  there  seems  to 
be  some  possible  connection  between  two  phenomena,  it 


254  ARGUMENTATION. 

does  not  necessarily  exist,  and  (b)  if  there  is  some  con- 
nection, it  is  not  necessarily  causal;  (2)  that  it  is  very 
rare  indeed  that  anj  phenomenon  is  the  result  of  one 
cause  only;  and  (3}  that  when  many  causes  are  at  work, 
some  may  negative  others,  and  the  cause  assigned  for  the 
result  may  not  be  at  all  the  reason  for  it. 

Certainly,  it  must  be  clear  enough  that  because  there 
seems  to  be  a  possible  connection  between  two  phenomena, 
it  need  not  exist.  The  illustration  from  common  super- 
stitions given  above  shows  this.  That  if  a  connection 
does  exist  between  two  phenomena  it  is  not  necessarily 
causal,  the  illustration  in  regard  to  wealth  and  silver 
proves,  and  so  do  the  arguments  from  sign  given  on  pp. 
203,  210.  It  should  need  little  illustration  to  prove  that 
very  few  phenomena  result  from  one  cause.  Battles  have 
doubtless  been  won  simply  by  the  splendid  fighting  of  the 
men  on  one  side,  but  far  more  often  several  reasons  have 
combined  to  produce  the  victory,  —  the  superior  strategy 
of  one  general,  the  better  training  of  his  men,  the  failure 
of  ammunition  among  some  of  the  opposing  troops,  etc. 
Were  the  intermingling,  the  complexity  of  causes  less,  we 
should  not  have  so  many  different  opinions  as  to  histori- 
cal events  and  their  causes.  In  the  case  of  the  patent 
medicines,  the  nostrum  may  have  done  little  or  nothing 
toward  the  cure.  If  it  was  harmless,  the  medicines  previ- 
ously taken,  but  not  given  time  enough  before  the  nostrum 
was  taken  to  produce  their  effects,  may  have  worked  the 
cure.  The  trouble  may  have  been  largely  imaginary,  and 
the  faith  of  the  patient  in  his  nostrum  may  have  effected 
the  cure,  aided  a  little  by  qualities  of  the  nostrum  like 
those  of  the  medicines  he  had  been  taking.  In  the  case 
of  the  lost  dogs  it  is  possible  that  the  desire  to  sell  dogs 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  255 

to  vivisectors  caused  some  men  to  steal,  but  the  care- 
lessness of  masters,  the  vagrant  tendency  of  dogs,  a 
half-dozen  causes  doubtless  underlay  the  disappearances. 
Moreover,  since  the  disappearance  of  the  dogs  went  on  at 
about  the  same  rate,  even  when  the  papers  were  full  of 
outcries  against  the  vivisectors,  it  is  possible  that  though 
that  cause  had  been  at  work,  fear  for  a  time  deterred  the 
thieves  from  taking  the  dogs,  while  the  other  causes  held 
good.  That  is,  it  is  very  possible  that  of  the  illustrations 
given  in  the  newspaper  not  one  resulted  from  the  cause 
assigned.  In  the  complexity  of  causes,  then,  at  work  to 
produce  or  to  prevent  a  particular  act,  the  cause  fastened 
upon  by  an  observer  may  have  been  counteracted  and 
be  really  not  a  cause  at  all. 

In  considering  the  theories  of  historians,  economists, 
politicians,  a  student  should  keep  constantly  in  mind  the 
complexity,  the  multiplicity  of  causes  behind  events,  and 
be  on  his  guard  for  the  fallacy  just  considered.  When, 
thai,  causes  for  results  are  assigned,  readers  should  be 
made  to  see  that  (i)  there  is  a  necessary  connection  between 
the  result  and  the  assigned  causes,  and  that  (2)  the  causes 
are  by  themselves  sufficient  to  produce  the  result  in  question. 
Unless  this  is  done,  evidently  two  matters  that  must  be 
settled  before  discussion  can  be  continued  are  left  without 
proof. 

(c)  Arguing  from  a  False  Assumption.  —  A  slightly  dif- 
ferent form  of  this  fallacy  is  to  base  an  argument  on 
something  not  true,  the  fallacy  of  a  false  assumption. 
For  instance,  if  some  one  trying  to  prove  the  skill  of  the 
Swiss  with  the  bow  in  past  times  used  the  story  of  Tell 
and  the  apple  as  proof,  he  would  fall  into  this  fallacy, 
since  this  storv  of  our  childhood  has  been  proved  false. 


256  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

A  form  this  fallacy  often  takes  in  works  of  history, 
economics,  and  philosophy,  is  the  following.  Early  in 
the  book  the  writer  makes  a  shrewd  guess  at  past  condi- 
tions, at  probable  causes,  develops  a  theory  that  he  says 
is  possible.  Later  he  refers  to  his  guesses  as  facts,  the 
possible  theory  as  an  established  fact.  A  part  of  this 
fallacy  is  the  use  sometimes  made  by  students  of  meta- 
phors, similes,  invented  illustrations.  These  may,  of 
course,  be  used  to  make  clearer  the  meaning  of  a  writer, 
but  he  should  never  use  them  as  facts  upon  which  he  can 
base  an  argument.  For  instance,  a  student  writing  on 
the  question  "  Is  Weissmann's  theory  of  Heredity  sound  ?  " 
proved  that  it  is  true  by  using  numerous  examples  of 
acquired  characteristics  in  parents  transmitted  to  their  off- 
spring. When  asked  to  state  where  he  found  these 
extremely  valuable  data,  he  said  that  he  had  concocted 
them,  and  that  what  he  meant  to  say  was  :  "  If  in  children 
we  should  find  a  case  like  this,  and  that  —  and  considering 
the  remarkable  cases  we  do  see,  why  might  not  this  hap- 
pen ? —  then  Weissmann's  theory  would  be  correct." 
Students  of  Argumentation  should  not  forget  that 
though  metaphors,  similes,  imaginary  cases,  are  admirable 
in  showing  what  a  writer  means,  they  should  never  be  used 
as  proof  of  the  truth  of  anytJiing.  If  a  student  does  use 
them  as  proof,  he  at  once  begs  the  important  question, 
"  Are  what  you  take  as  facts  really  facts  ? "  and  falls  into 
the  fallacy  here  under  discussion. 

A  common  form  of  this  fallacy  is  to  offer  an  analogy 
between  two  cases  as  proof  that  the  result  found  in  the 
first  case  may  be  expected  in  the  second.  There  are  two 
possible  dangers  in  this.  In  the  first  place,  the  analogy 
may  be  false,  not  real ;  in  the  second,  as  was  pointed  out 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  257 

on  p.  207,  the  Argument  from  Analogy  is  but  a  kind  of 
simile,  and  until  it  is  shown  that  the  point  of  similarity 
is  connected  with  the  point  in  question,  the  so-called 
argument  should  not  be  used  to  prove  anything  true  or 
false.  Here  is  an  attempt  to  use  the  Argument  from 
Analogy  as  if  in  itself  it  had  probative  force :  — 

"  The  ground  upon  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  justi- 
fies, or  at  least  defends,  the  course  of  the  Canadian  vessels 
rests  upon  the  fact  that  they  are  committing  their  acts  of 
destruction  on  the  high  seas,  viz.,  more  than  3  marine  miles 
from  the  shore  line.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Her  Majesty's 
Government  would  abide  by  this  rule  if  the  attempt  were  made 
to  interfere  with  the  pearl  fisheries  of  Ceylon,  which  extend 
more  than  20  miles  from  the  shore  line  and  have  been  enjoyed 
by  England  without  molestation  ever  since  their  acquisition."  ' 

In  this  example  Senator  Morgan  does  not  find  a  past 
case  of  seal-fishing  from  which  to  draw  an  argument,  but 
points  out  in  pearl-diving  and  catching  seals  a  likeness, 
an  analogy,  in  that  both  are  called  fishing.  This  is  cor- 
rect, but  for  the  analogy  to  have  any  probative  force, 
Senator  Morgan  must  show  some  necessary  connection 
between  the  mere  existence  of  so-called  fishing  in  both 
cases  and  his  desired  conclusion  that  both  must  have  the 
same  limitations.  It  is  perfectly  possible  that  the  con- 
ditions of  pearl-fishing  differ  sufficiently  from  those  of 
seal-fishing  to  make  it  impossible  to  show  this  connection. 
In  that  case  the  analogy,  though  good,  proves  nothing 
true  or  false.  A  good  analogy  at  best,  then,  shows  only 
resemblance,  unless  it  can  be  proved  to  have  some  necessary 
connection  with  the  result  in  question. 

1  Behring  Sea  Tribunal,  p.  52.     Washington,  D.  C,  1893. 


258  ARGUMENTATION. 

(d)  Referring  to  Ambiguous  Evidence  as  if  it  could  have 
but  one  Interpretation.  —  Another  phase  of  this  fallacy, 
Begging  the  Question,  is  a  favorite  with  careless  writers, 
—  that  of  broad  references.  Often  a  college  student 
refers  to  some  writer,  to  some  chapter,  paragraph  or  sen- 
tence, which  certainly  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  support 
his  ideas,  but  is  equally  open  to  other  interpretations. 
Plainly,  then,  he  leaves  unsettled  just  the  point  for  the 
moment  most  demanding  decision,  whether  his  interpreta- 
tion or  another  is  the  more  correct.  Unless  the  passage 
referred  to  can  have  but  one  meaning,  he  should  either  not 
use  it,  or  as  he  uses  it,  should  show  why  his  interpretation 
of  it  is  preferable  to  any  other. 

Summary. 

A  writer  may,  then,  beg  the  question  in  any  one  of  the 
following  ways  :  (a)  He  may  assume  without  support  the 
truth  of  a  statement  equivalent  to  the  conclusion,  or  possi- 
ble only  if  that  be  granted  ;  (b)  he  may  unduly  assume 
the  truth  of  a  premise  that  needs  examination  (i)  because 
it  is  not  self-evident,  (2)  because  the  writer  may  have 
mistaken  a  sign  for  a  cause,  (3)  because  he  may  have 
mistaken  for  cause  and  effect  two  phenomena  which  are 
merely  successive,  (4)  because  it  is  false,  (5)  because  it 
may  have  more  than  one  interpretation.  Against  all  of 
these  forms  of  fallacy  a  student  of  Argumentation  should 
guard  by  careful  analysis  to  find  the  question  that  at  the 
moment  demands  proof.  Finding  that,  he  will  see  at 
once  whether  the  evidence  begs  the  question. 


ARGUMENTATION.  259 

The  Fallacy,  Ignoring  the  Question,  Ignoratio  Elenchi. 

i.  Direct  Ignoring  of  the  Question.  —  A  third  kind  of 
fallacy  that  has  several  subdivisions  is  Ignoring  the  Ques- 
tion, Ignoratio  Elenchi.  In  this  a  writer,  either  intention- 
ally or  by  mistake,  discusses  not  the  real  but  an  allied  or 
entirely  disconnected  question.  For  instance,  a  recent 
topic  for  forensics  at  Harvard  College  read :  "  Was  Gen- 
eral Winslow's  treatment  of  the  Acadians  justifiable?" 
A  large  number  of  students  wrote  careful  arguments  to 
prove  that  the  English  were  justified  in  removing  the 
Acadians  from  their  homes.  The  question  had  been 
carefully  worded  to  exclude  discussion  of  this  practically 
settled  matter,  and  to  suggest  consideration  of  the  jus- 
tifiability of  the  details  of  Winslow's  treatment  of  the 
Acadians  when  carrying  out  the  general  order  for  their 
removal.  Another  topic  was,  "  Should  Japan  be  given 
equal  treaty  rights  with  the  great  civilized  nations  ? " 
Many  students  argued  to  prove  that  it  would  be  best  for 
civilization  if  Japan  should  win  in  the  war. 

2.  The  Fallacious  Use  of  the  Argumentum  ad  Hominem. 
—  Another  form  of  this  fallacy  is  the  improper  use  of  the 
so-called  Argumentum  ad  Hominem.  This  argument  "  is 
addressed  to  the  peculiar  circumstances,  character,  avowed 
opinions,  or  past  conduct  of  the  individual,  and  therefore 
has  a  reference  to  him  only,  and  does  not  bear  directly  and 
absolutely  on  the  real  question."  l  That  is,  not  the  right- 
.  ness  or  the  wrongness  of  the  issue  is  proved,  but  its  Tight- 
ness or  wrongness  for  one  individual,  or  those  only  among 
men  whose  circumstances,  character,  past  conduct,  or 
avowed  opinions  are  like  his.     The  fallacy  comes  in  using 

1  Elements  of  Logic,  Whately,  p.  237. 


260  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

this  argument  which  can  be  convincing  only  for  this  small 
class  of  men  as  if  it  must  be  convincing  for  humanity  in 
general.  For  instance,  most  of  our  appeals  to  friends  to 
be  consistent  in  their  actions  are  argumenta  ad  Jwminem. 
A  friend  has,  for  example,  turned  away  a  beggar  from  his 
door,  and  we  urge  that  he  should  have  given  in  this  case 
because  we  have  never  seen  him  refuse  alms  before,  and 
have  heard  him  say  repeatedly  that  a  man  who  has  enough, 
as  he  admittedly  has,  should  always  be  willing  to  spare  a 
little  to  the  needy.  Another  friend  has  often  declared  in 
our  presence  that  our  system  of  free  public  schools  is  the 
strength  of  the  nation,  and  that  every  citizen  should  give 
it  all  possible  support.  When,  however,  his  child  reaches 
the  age  for  entering  the  grammar  school  he  sends  it  to  a 
private  school.  We  tax  him  with  inconsistency,  and  use 
the  Argumentum  ad  Hominem.  It  is  by  an  argumentum 
ad  Jwminem  that  the  Signorina  Nugent,  in  the  last 
sentence  but  one  of  the  following,  gets  the  better  of 
Mr.   Martin :  — 

"  She  said  nothing,  but  stood  there,  biting  the  rose. 

" '  Give  it  to  me,'  I  said  ;  '  it  shall  be  my  badge  of  service.' 

"  '  You  will  serve  me,  then  ? '  said  she. 

"  '  For  what  reward  ? ' 

"  '  Why,  the  rose  ! ' 

"  '  I  should  like  the  owner,  too,'  I  ventured  to  remark. 

"  'The  rose  is  prettier  than  the  owner,'  she  said;  'and,  at 
any  rate,  one  thing  at  a  time,  Mr.  Martin  !  Do  you  pay  your 
servants  all  their  wages  in  advance  ? ' 

"  My  practice  was  so  much  the  contrary  that  I  really  could  n't 
deny  the  force  of  her  reasoning."  1 

1  A  Man  of  Mark,  pp.  46,  47.     Anthony  Hope.     H.  Holt  &  Co.,  1895. 


ARGUMENTATION.  261 

In  all  these  cases  the  Argutnentum  ad Hominem  has  been 
correctly  used.  If,  however,  the  successful  arguer  in  any 
one  of  the  cases  given  should  assume  not  that  he  has 
proved  that  his  friend  should  give  to  all  beggars,  but  that 
beggars  should  always  be  given  aid;  or,  not  that  the 
friend  should  send  his  child  to  the  public  schools,  but  that 
all  good  citizens  should  send  their  children  to  the  public 
schools  ;  or,  not  that  Martin  should  not  expect  a  full 
reward  till  his  service  had  been  done,  but  that  no  one 
I  should  expect  a  full  reward  till  his  service  is  done,  — that 
is,  if  he  attempts  to  make  a  universal  application  of  an 
argument  that  has  force  only  for  a  special  case,  —  he 
thereby  falls  into  the  fallacy  now  under  discussion.  Evi- 
dently, doing  this,  he  fails  to  see  what  is  the  work  that 
he  should  do,  —  establish  the  general  truth  of  the  princi- 
ple, not  its  applicability  in  a  special  case,  —  and  so  ignores 
the  question. 

3.    Shifting  Ground.  —  Another  form  of  this  fallacy  is 

Ithe  very  exasperating  one,  Shifting  Ground.     In  this  a 

writer,  when  pressed  hard,  shifts  from' the  original  thesis 

he  started  to  support ;  and  when  pressed  hard  in  his  new 

position,   shifts  to   still   a   third.     Usually    the    different 

theses  are   so   closely  allied,    so   strongly   resemble    one 

another,  that    the   shifting    is   not    easily  seen,  and  the 

writer  may,   by  proving  something  true  of   one  of  his 

theses   which   he  could  by  no  means  prove  true  of  the 

original    question,   seem    to    establish    the    truth    of   the 

loriginal  thesis.     Many  of  the  chance  arguments  one  hears 

■on  English  composition  as  a  prescribed  part  of  a  college 

■course  illustrate  this  fallacy.     An  English  instructor  is 

Itold :    "  Why  force  students  to  study  English  composition  ? 

■You  have  a  subject  which  cannot  be  taught.     To  write 


262  ARGUMENTATION. 

well  is  a  God-given  power."  When  the  instructor  shows 
that  the  critic  is  here  making  no  distinction  between 
inborn  literary  genius  that  may  express  itself  forcibly, 
though  crudely,  without  training,  and  a  training  in  correct 
usage,  in  force,  clearness,  and  elegance,  then  the  critic 
says,  shifting  his  ground  slightly:  "But  you  know  a 
student  can  just  as  well  pick  up  style  from  contact  with 
good  books,  by  browsing-  in  a  fine  library."  When  he  is 
shown  that  such  an  opportunity  is  rare,  and  that  there  are 
serious  objections  to  such  a  method,  he  answers:  "  I  feel 
sure  that  method  is  the  best,  for  some  boys  cannot  learn 
to  write  well."  When  the  instructor  points  out  that, 
though  this  is  true  of  a  very  small  number,  most  boys  can 
learn  to  write  well,  and  that  many,  under  the  system  of 
prescribed  English,  do  become  proficient  who  otherwise 
would  not  learn,  the  opponent  answers :  "  Yes,  that  is, 
those  who  have  the  inborn  power,  though  they  were  not 
aware  of  it."  By  this  he  triumphantly  ^everts  to  his 
original  position,  shifting  his  ground  a  third  time.  Clearly, 
such  work  as  this  ignores  the  real  question  for  discussion, 
constantly  substituting  for  it  another  topic  very  similar, 
but  not  the  same. 

4.  The  Fallacy  of  Objections.  —  Still  another  form  of 
this  fallacy  is  to  raise  objections  of  any  kind  to  a  plan, 
theory,  or  system,  and  then  to  infer  that  it  must  be 
rejected.  When,  however,  objections  are  raised  two 
important  questions  at  once  arise:  (1)  Are  the  objections 
raised  essentially  connected  with  the  point  in  question  ? 
and  (2)  granted  that  in  nearly  all  cases  there  must  be  both 
advantages  and  disadvantages,  do  the  objections  in  this 
case  outweigh  the  advantages?  It  is  not,  for  instance, 
difficult  to  point  out,  in  cases  where  the  Argument  from 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  263 

Example  is  used,  some  differences  between  the  two  or 
more  cases  in  question,  but  unless  the  cases  differ  in 
something  that  was  an  essential  part  of  the  process  pro- 
ducing the  result  in  question,  the  objection  can  have  no 
force.  For  instance,  to  recur  to  the  illustration  of  a  foot- 
ball game,  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  the  teams  opposed 
to  each  other  in  the  old  case  on  which  the  example  is 
founded  and  those  in  the  game  under  discussion  are  not 
the  same ;  that  the  weather  in  which  the  game  was  played 
was  different ;  that  different  kinds  of  costumes  were  worn, 
that  there  were  different  referees.  Unless,  however,  it 
can  be  shown  that  in  the  game  used  as  the  basis  of  the 
example  some  one  of  these  matters  formed  an  essential 
part  of  the  process,  "  tackling,"  the  objections  have  no 
value. 

There  have  been  few  plans  and  systems,  even  if  the 
great  legislative  measures,  great  political  acts,  great 
humanitarian  movements  be  included,  to  which  valid 
objections  could  not  be  raised.  There  has,  for  instance, 
been  much  discussion  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which  enfranchised  the 
negro.  It  is  not  difficult  to  point  out  ways  in  which  it 
works  badly.  No  doubt  in  ante-bellum  days  men  were 
right  in  saying  that  there  were  strong  objections  to  the 
theories  of  the  abolitionists.  Harvard  students,  some 
years  ago,  in  treating  the  topic  "  Should  the  Australian 
Ballot  System  be  adopted  in  the  United  States  ? "  suc- 
ceeded in  pointing  out  real  objections  to  it.  Those  who 
argue  fallaciously  on  the  subjects  just  mentioned  decide 
that  because  they  have  shown  real  objections  to  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment,  to  Abolition,  to  the  Australian  Ballot 
System,  therefore  the  plans  should  not  be  adopted.     They 


264  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

ignore  the  real  question  :  "  Do  the  valid  objections  out- 
weigh the  proved  advantages  ?  "  Unless,  then,  an  argu- 
ment from  objections  can  stand  the  two  tests  mentioned, 
it  must  fall. 

5.  Proving  Something  True  of  a  Part  only,  not  of  the 
Whole.  —  Still  another  phase  of  the  fallacy,  Ignoring  the 
Question,  is  proving  something  true  of  a  part  when  it 
should  be  proved  true  of  the  whole.  The  topic  just  used, 
"  Should  the  Australian  Ballot  System  be  adopted  in  the 
United  States  ?  "  gave  at  Harvard  instances  of  this  fallacy. 
Many  students,  after  considering  advantages  to  be  ex- 
pected from  it,  and  overcoming  objections  to  it,  decided 
that  the  system  should.be  adopted.  What  interfered  with 
the  conclusiveness  of  their  opinions  was  that  each  student 
wrote  only  of  those  political  conditions  which  he  knew 
best.  The  New  Englander,  the  Ohioan,  forgot  that  New 
England,  the  Middle  States,  the  South,  the  Northwest, 
the  Pacific  Slope,  all  have  different  political  problems 
which  the  system  of  balloting  affects.  After  proving  not 
that  the  differing  needs  in  all  these  sections  would  be  met 
better  by  the  new  than  the  old  system,  but  that  the  sec- 
tion best  known  to  them  would  be  benefited,  they  stated 
their  conclusion  as  holding  good  for  the  whole  country. 
Their  conclusion,  if  it  was  not  to  be  fallacious,  should 
have  read,  not  "  The  system  would  be  beneficial  to  the 
United  States,"  but  "  The  system  would  be  beneficial  to 
New  England,  or  to  the  New  England  and  the  Middle 
States." 

Summary. 

A  reader  must  see  that  the  improper  use  of  the  Argu- 
mentum  ad Hominem ;  shifting  ground;  raising  objections 
without  considering  whether  they  are  connected  with  the 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  265 

point  in  discussion,  or,  if  connected,  outweigh  the  advan- 
tages ;  proving  something  true  of  a  part  when  the  whole 
should  be  considered,  are  all  cases  in  which  the  arguer 
ignores  the  real  question.  Clearly,  analysis  will,  by  show- 
ing what  the  special  issue  is,  lay  bare  these  fallacies. 

Why  a  Further  Sub-division  of  Fallacies  is  not  Neces- 
sary here. 

The  three  main  possible  sources  of  fallacy — ambiguous 
or  incorrect  uses  of  words ;  begging  the  question,  that  is, 
assuming  either  the  conclusion  of  the  argument,  or  a  pre- 
mise that  needs  proof ;  ignoring  the  question  in  hand  and 
proving  something  else  —  should  be  carefully  kept  in  mind 
by  a  student  of  Argumentation.  Little  by  little  he  will 
recognize,  in  his  work  of  sifting  evidence,  the  sub-divisions 
of  these  three  already  explained.  Very  probably  he  will 
find  others,  but  the  special  sub-division  is  so  unimportant, 
if  the  main  division  to  which  it  belongs  is  clearly  recog- 
nized, that  it  has  not  seemed  wise  to  do  more  here  than 
show  the  most  common  aspects  of  the  big  divisions. 
Moreover,  the  divisions  at  best  run  into  one  another,  and 
it  is  difficult  to  say  that  a  fallacy  belongs  more  to  one 
class  than  to  another.  For  instance,  the  man  who  argued 
against  prescribed  English  composition  (p.  261)  not  only 
shifted  his  ground  but  argued  in  a  circle.  Let  a  student 
remember  that  what  has  been  said  has  been  given,  not  for 
the  purpose  of  helping  him  to  classify  definitively  every 
fallacy  he  sees,  but  merely  to  help  him  to  recognize 
unsound  modes  of  reasoning.  If  he  can  place  an  argument 
in  any  one  of  the  classes  of  fallacies,  that  should  be 
enough  for  him,  for  this  disposes  of  it.     If,  to  use  the  ex- 


266  ARGUMENTATION. 

ample  of  the  critic  of  prescribed  English  composition,  he 
recognizes  first  the  shifting  ground,  let  him  throw  out 
the  argument  as  that  kind  of  fallacy.  If  he  sees  first  the 
circular  argument,  let  him  put  aside  the  argument  on  that 
ground.  Whether  it  is  more  one  than  the  other  need 
trouble  logicians  only. 


Analysis  the  Great  Foe  of  Fallacy. 

If  fallacies  were  as  directly  and  simply  stated  in  all 
cases  as,  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  they  have  been  in  the 
above  illustrations,  they  would  not  be  difficult  to  remove. 
As  has  been  said,  however,  they  hide  themselves  away 
in  a  mass  of  other  matter  that  may  be  wholly  true,  and, 
thus  imbedded,  they  are  difficult  to  recognize.  The  sim- 
plest method  of  finding  them  is  to  cut  the  long  argument 
down  to  its  simplest  proportions,  to  find  just  what  its 
main  thesis  is,  and  on  what  subordinate  theses  that  rests. 
That  is  what  was  done  in  nearly  all  the  illustrations  given 
from  the  work  of  college  students.  But  what  is  this 
except  analysis  — "  the  exclusion  of  ideas  for  a  central 
idea  or  ideas  "  ?  Analysis  is,  then,  as  has  been  said,  the 
preventive  or  the  destroyer  of  fallacies.  Let  a  reader 
cut  an  argument  down  to  its  simplest  proportions  —  that 
is,  make  a  brief  of  it  —  and  he  will  find  very  shortly 
whether  the  use  of  ambiguous  words  or  incorrect  mean- 
ings, begging  or  ignoring  the  question,  is  present  —  in 
a  word,  whether  there  is  any  fallacy  in  it.  Surely  the 
importance  of  analysis  in  Argumentation  must  again  be 
clear. 


ARGUMENTATION.  267 

The  Use  of  Either  External  or  Internal  Tests  at 

Will. 

A  thoughtful  reader  of  the  pages  on  the  tests  of  evi- 
dence has  doubtless  felt  that  in  some  cases  the  weakness 
of  one  of  the  illustrations  could  be  shown  by  either  one 
of  the  external  or  one  of  the  internal  tests.  For  instance, 
the  assumption  of  a  false  premise  (p.  255)  might  be  recog- 
nized by  the  external  test  that  a  bit  of  evidence  must 
agree  with  human  experience  in  the  known  facts  in  the 
case.  This  is  true,  for  these  tests  of  evidence  are  not 
offered  as  wholly  independent  or  as  perfect  means  of 
classification.  Their  purpose  is  served  if  a  student, 
through  knowing  that  such  tests  exist,  is  able  to  recognize 
the  errors  in  an  argument.  Whether  he  sees  that  in  it  a 
cause  for  an  effect  is  given  that  should  be  proved  to  be 
a  cause,  or  simply  says  that  human  experience  or  other 
facts  in  the  case  known  to  be  true  contradict,  is  of  no 
consequence.  The  point  is,  that  by  some  one  of  these 
aids  he  should  recognize  the  error. 

Summary  of  the  Tests  of  Evidence. 

The  tests,  then,  that  may  be  applied  to  evidence  are, 
roughly  speaking,  of  two  kinds:  external  and  internal. 

The  external  are :  three  as  to  the  statement  itself  —  it 
must  not  contradict  well-established  human  experience  or 
the  other  well-established  facts  in  the  case,  it  must  not 
contradict  itself;  two  as  to  the  conditions  under  which 
the  testimony  is  given  —  the  witness  should  not  give 
evidence  reluctantly,  nor  should  he  be  forced  in  his  testi- 
mony; four  as  to  the  witness  —  he  must  be  free  from 
prejudice  and  personal  interest,  he  must  be  intelligent, 


268  ARG UMENTA  TIOJV. 

his  senses  must  be  reliable,  he  himself  must  stand  in 
the  community  as  an  honest  thinker  and  liver,  who  shuns 
the  glosses  of  imagination. 

The  internal  tests  are:  there  should  be  in  the  argu- 
ment (i)  no  ambiguous  or  incorrect  use  of  words;  (2)  no 
begging  of  the  question,  that  is,  no  undue  assumption  of 
a  conclusion  or  a  premise;  (3)  no  ignoring  of  the  question. 
Finally,  a  student  should  not  assume  that  because  he  has 
found  that  a  premise  of  an  opponent's  argument  is  false 
or  true,  the  conclusion  necessarily  is  false  or  true  ;  nor 
that  because  he  has  shown  the  conclusion  of  an  argument 
is  false  or  true,  a  premise  is. 

The  Importance  of  the  Study  of  Evidence. 

A  student  cannot  too  carefully  consider  this  great  divi- 
sion of  Argumentation,  Evidence.  It  is  fully  as  impor- 
tant as  Analysis,  and  students  master  it  much  more 
slowly.  At  the  beginning  of  Chapter  II.  the  reader  was 
told  that  to  argue  clearly  three  conditions  are  absolutely 
necessary:  to  know  (1)  What  the  question  means;  (2) 
What  you  believe  and  why;  and  (3)  How  you  are  to  state 
your  case  so  that  it  shall  (a)  convince,  and  (b)  persuade. 
He  who  understands  analysis  can  master  the  first  divi- 
sion. When  a  student  understands  what  evidence  is, 
what  kinds  of  evidence  there  are,  and  by  what  tests  evi- 
dence may  be  judged  good  or  bad,  he  will  be  able,  when 
he  has  a  case  to  treat,  to  decide  what  he  believes  about  it 
and  why,  the  second  important  step  in  all  Argumentation. 
The  work  of  the  next  division  is  to  show  how  a  student 
may  best  phrase  his  material  so  as  to  convince  a  reader. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE    FORENSIC    ITSELF. 

The  Relation  of  the  Forensic  to  the  Brief. 

WHEN  a  student  understands  Analysis  and,  in  conse- 
quence, has  carefully  drawn  up  his  brief  of  his  sub' 
ject;  when  he  has  decided  what  evidence  he  will  use  and  why, 
he  is  certainly  ready  to  write  his  argument,  his  forensic. 
This  is  really  but  an  expansion  of  the  brief  itself.  In  it 
the  introduction,  the  brief  proper,  and  the  conclusion  of 
the  brief  are  developed  in  literary  form  into  the  introduc- 
tion^ the  argument  itself,  and  the  peroration.  Just  as  the 
scaffolding  precedes  the  building  and  aids  in  its  construc- 
tion, to  disappear  entirely  when  the  building  is  completed, 
so  the  brief  precedes  the  forensic,  aids  in  its  construction, 
and  disappears  when  the  work  is  completed.  A  skilled 
builder  will  know  that  a  certain  kind  of  scaffolding  must 
have  helped  in  the  construction  of  a  particular  building; 
so,  too,  any  skilled  worker  in  Argumentation  will  see  the 
neat  structure  underlying  a  well-constructed  forensic. 
Just,  however,  as  the  builder  cannot  tell  at  once  of  what 
wood  the  scaffolding  was  made,  so  the  student  of  Argu- 
mentation will  not  know  just  how  the  heads  and  subheads 
were  phrased  or  marked.  In  other  words,  the  brief  under- 
lying a  forensic  should  be  evident,  not  on  its  face,  but 
only  after  careful  scrutiny  of  the  work.  No  letterings, 
headings,  numberings,  mark  a  good  forensic  —  it  is  simply 
a  written  argument  resulting  from  careful  analysis  that 


270  ARGUMENTATION. 


has  taken  form  in  a  good  brief,  careful  selection  of  evi- 
dence, and  literary  skill  that  knows  how,  placing  the 
carefully  selected  evidence  at  the  places  where  the  brief 
proper  calls  for  it,  to  expand  the  brief  into  the  complete 
v argument.  The  forensic  will  be  well  constructed  because' 
its  brief  had  unity,  —  that  is,  all  its  parts  were  made 
"subservient  to  one  principal  end";  clear,  because  its 
brief  develops  clearly,  and  its  author  knows  how  to  write 
clearly;  forcible,  because  the  brief  had  climax  and  the 
writer  has  selected  and  handles  his  evidence  well,  and 
phrases  his  ideas  with  strength ;  elegant,  if  need  be, 
because  the  writer  has  a  graceful,  flowing  style.  As  far 
as  conviction  is  concerned,  then,  if  a  student  has  mastered 
Analysis  and  the  selection  of  Evidence,  and,  from  previ- 
ous study,  understands  the  rules  of  Rhetoric  well  enough 
to  have  clearness,  force,  and  elegance  in  the  phrasing  of 
his  ideas,  there  are  but  few  suggestions  as  to  writing  a 
forensic  to  be  added  to  those  given  in  the  preceding 
chapter.  These  few  will  deal  with  effective  methods  of 
handling  evidence.  It  is  the  fact  that  the  work  of  almost 
every  argument  consists  of  something  more  than  convic- 
tion, of  persuasion  as  well,  that  makes  this  chapter  really 
necessary.  It  is  very  important  that  before  a  student 
writes  much  argument  he  should  understand  the  well-nigh 
inseparable  union  of  conviction  and  persuasion  in  all 
strong  Argumentation. 

The  Three  Divisions  of  a  Forensic 

As  has  been  said,  a  forensic  has  three  parts,  corre- 
sponding to  the  three  parts  of  the  brief,  though  they  are 
not,   as  in   the  brief,  carefully  designated   by  headings. 


ARGUMENTATION.  271 

The  introduction  of  the  forensic  corresponds  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  brief,  the  argument  itself  to  the  brief 
proper,  the  pero_ration  to  the  conclusion.  It  will  be  con- 
venient in  considering  the  forensic  itself  to  treat  it  under 
these  divisions,  for  the  work  of  each  somewhat  differs 
from  that  of  the  other  two 

The  Introduction.     Its  Work  in  Conviction. 

Following  a  division  made  early  in  this  book  (p.  i),  it 
may  be  said  that  the  work  of  the  introduction  is  twofold : 
to  appeal  to  the  understanding  —  to  convince  ;  and  to  f 
appeal  to  the  emotions  —  to  persuade.  Its  work  in  con- 
viction is  exactly  that  of  the  brief  introduction,  to  show 
clearly  what  the  question  in  dispute  is.  In  order  to  do 
this,  it,  like  the  brief,  does  as  much  of  the  following  as  may 
be  necessary  to  make  the  meaning  of  the  question  per- 
fectly clear.  It  may  give  the  proposition,  define  terms, 
show  the  origin  of  the  question,  settle  what  facts  are  ad- 
mitted by  both  sides,  cut  out  extraneous  matter,  and  state 
the  special  issue.  In  other  words,  it  phrases  only  what 
both  sides  must  admit  to  be  true  if  there  is  to  be  any  dis- 
cussion. The  final  test  of  it  is  that  it  shall  lead  clearly  to 
the  argument  itself,  giving  a  reader  just  the  information 
he  needs  to  make  the  development  of  the  argument  itself 
clear.  Some  idea  of  the  unsatisfactoriness  of  introductions 
which  do  not  comply  with  these  conditions  is  given  in 
that  part  of  Chapter  III.  which  considers  unsatisfactory 
brief  introductions.  The  first  eleven  lines  of  the  forensic 
on  the  Beaconsfield  Ministry  and  the  Eastern  Question, 
(p.  182),  and  the  following  quotations,  will  make  clear 
what  inadequate  brief  introductions  produce  as  introduc- 
tions for  forensics: 


272  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

"  Did   Henry   Clay   enter   into   a  Corrupt  Bargain  in 

1825? 

"  Perhaps  one  of  the  most  important  events  in  the  life  of 
Henry  Clay  was  the  charge  of  entering  into  a  corrupt  bargain, 
brought  forward  after  the  presidential  campaign  of  1824.  The 
impression  made  by  this  false  accusation  remained  by  him 
throughout  the  greater  part  of  his  life. 

"  Henry  Clay  may  be  taken  as  an  example  of  an  innocent 
man  falsely  accused  of  some  grave  charge.  This  is  not  an 
uncommon  occurrence  in  this  world,  but  it  is  something  every 
one  should  try  and  avoid,  because  slander  has  wings  like  Mer- 
cury. There  are  so  many  people  in  the  world  who  are  ever 
ready  to  believe  a  calumny,  though  they  have  no  proofs  to  sub- 
stantiate the  charge.  It  was  so  with  Henry  Clay.  There  were 
many  of  these  same  people  who  thought  Clay  was  justly  accused, 
before  they  had  examined  the  case  on  one  side  or  the  other." 

"A  Condemnation  of  the  Epicurean  Theory  of  Life. 

"  The  epicurean  theory  of  life  makes  man's  aim  the  attain- 
ment of  pleasure.  The  supporters  of  this  theory  maintain  that 
man  is  born  into  the  world  to  enjoy  himself.  His  all-important 
purpose  is  to  get  the  greatest  possible  pleasure.  His  wisest 
course  is  the  shortest  which  shall  lead  to  the  accomplishment 
of  that  purpose.  His  motto  is  '  Man  hath  no  thing  better  under 
the  sun  than  to  eat,  to  drink,  and  to  be  merry.'  "  x 

The  confusion  of  the  introduction  to  the  Beaconsfielcl 
forensic,  the  inadequacy  of  all  these  introductions,  must 
be  apparent.  In  none  of  them  has  preliminary  analysis 
prepared  a  good  brief  introduction  that  showed  just  what 
the  question  in  dispute  is,  and  how  much  information  a 

1  Monthly  Religious  Magazine. 


5ITYJ 

ARGUMENTA  TION>~  273 

'  reader  must  be  given  before  he  can  properly  comprehend 
a  discussion  of  the  point  at  issue.  This  is  particularly 
[true  of  the  Condemnation  of  the  Epicurean  Theory  of 
Life.  In  this  a  reader  does  not  hear  what  has  given  rise 
to  the  discussion.  He  is,  too,  given  a  definition  that  begs 
the  question,  since  those  who  uphold  the  Epicureans  say 
that  the  view  given  is  not  the  only  possible  interpretation 
of  Epicureanism.  He  is  left  uncertain  just  what  is  the 
question  for  him  to  consider.  No  brief  at  all,  or  briefs  with 
inadequate  introductions  preceded  these  three  specimens. 
Compare  these  with  the  following,  and  the  influence  of  a 
good  brief  introduction  on  the  forensic  will  be  clear :  — 

"Are  Continental  Areas  Permanent? 

"  The  question  '  Are  continental  areas  permanent  ? '  is  an 
important  one,  for  upon  its  correct  solution  depends  the  result 
of  many  investigations  of  geologists  into  the  past  history  of  the 
organic  and  inorganic  kingdoms  of  our  earth.  In  fact  its  impor- 
tance is  proved  by  the  attention  directed  to  it  by  many  eminent 
geologists.  The  result  of  their  investigations  has  been  in  the 
main  to  lead  them  to  the  conclusion  that  continental  areas  are 
not  permanent.  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  in  his  Elements  of  Geology? 
published  in  1872,  states  that  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
every  part  of  the  land  which  we  now  term  continental  land  has 
been  under  the  sea,  and  all  that  which  is  now  beneath  the  sea, 
even  that  in  the  greatest  depths,  has  been  continental  land. 
This  remark  represents  pretty  well  what  the  general  idea  was 
as  to  permanence  of  continents  up  to  1872.  Since  that  date, 
however,  a  constantly  increasing  number  of  geologists  have 
declared  that  in  their  opinion  continents  were  permanent, 
although  subject  to  constant  modification  of  form.     Such   is 

1  A  careful  reference  to  the  volume  and  page  should  be  given  here. 


274  ARGUMENTATION. 

my  belief,  and  the  arguments  I  bring  forward  are  to  sustain 
this  belief." 

Three  Kinds  of  Poor  Introductions  Developed  from 
Good  Briefs. 

All  that  can  prevent  a  good  brief  introduction  from 
developing  into  a  forensic  introduction,  good  as  far  as 

y  conviction  is  concerned,  is  laziness,  or  inability  in  the 
writer_tQ  phrase  his  ideas  clearly  and  forcibly.  It  is  very 
rare  that  a  student  who  can  plan  his  brief  introduction 
well  cannot  phrase  it  clearly  and  forcibly  in  a  developed 
form,  but  there  are  frequent  cases  among  college  students 
in  which  laziness,  or  a  lack  of  feeling  for  elegance,  makes 
poor  a  forensic  introduction  resting  on  a  good  brief. 
Sometimes  a  student  who  has  carefully  stated  details  in 
the  brief  introduction  does  not  repeat  them  in  beginning 
his  forensic,  but  refers  to  his  exposition  of  them  in  the 

»^brief.  Forensic  introductions  are  at  times  but  a  mere 
repetition  of  the  brief  introduction,  with  all  the  bareness 
of  phrasing,  and  even  the  letters  and  the  numerals.  Or, 
the  brief  introduction,  cleared  of  its  numerals  and  letter- 
ings, is  restated  in  so  slightly  developed  a  form  that  none 
of  the  rigidity  and  bareness  of  the  brief  is  lost.  A  writer 
should  always  remember  that  the  brief  and  the  forensic  are 
to  be  regarded  as  distinct  bits  of  ivork  ;  that  neither  should 
in  any  way  refer  to  the  other,  and  that  in  passing  from  the 
brief  to  the  forensic  he  is  expected  to  give  finish  by  his  lit- 
erary skill  to  what  was  but  an  outline  in  the  brief. 

Should  the  Conclusion  be  stated  in  the  Introduction? 

At  the  end  of  an  introduction  the  question  arises  :  Is 
it  best  to  state,  before  beginning  my  proof,    the   exact 


ARGUMENTATION.  275 

conclusion  which  I  desire  to  prove  true  or  false,  or  simply 
to  state  here  what  is  the  question,  without  committing 
myself  as  to  my  views  of  it  ?  When  it  can  in  no 
way  prejudice  the  writer's  chances  to  give  the  conclusion 
to  be  reached,  it  is  best  to  state  it.  Readers  of  Plato's 
dialogues  will  remember,  however,  that  Socrates  very 
often  held  back  his  real  conclusion  until  he  had  forced 
his  antagonist  to  grant  the  truth  of  proposition  after 
proposition,  each  leading  one  step  nearer  the  conclusion 
Socrates  desired  to  prove,  but  had  nowhere  stated. 
When  a  writer  knows  that  the  view  he  favors  is  unpopu- 
lar, or,  if  new,  is  likely  to  cause  hostility,  he  will  do 
better  to  reserve  his  statement  of  it  until,  by  the  strength 
of  his  proof,  he  has  at  least  somewhat  weakened  the 
fierceness  of  the  opposition. 

Not  only  the  nature  of  the  subject,  but  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  may  make  it  unwise  to  state  at  the 
beginning  the  thesis  to  be  established.  Some  years  ago, 
at  a  great  dinner  in  Boston  at  which  many  rich  and  liberal 
men  were  present,  a  minister  was  called  upon  to  speak. 
All  the  speeches  thus  far  had  been  entertaining,  with  no 
special  purpose  in  view.  This  man  wished  to  make  sure, 
before  he  sat  down,  of  a  large  contribution  for  a  Boston 
charity.  He  announced  his  serious  intention  at  once. 
He  made  a  by  no  means  uninteresting  speech,  but  was 
listened  to  silently.  At  the  end  there  was  no  response 
to  his  appeal  for  aid.  The  audience,  which  had  gathered 
as  it  supposed  merely  for  amusement,  felt  tricked  in 
meeting  this  attack  on  their  purses  when  they  were  obliged 
to  listen.  The  speaker's  frank  statement  of  his  purpose 
chilled  them  too  much  for  his  arguments  to  stir  them. 
Had    he    spoken    at    first    lightly    and    entertainingly  ; 


276  ARGUMENTA  T/OJV. 

then  slipped  skillfully  into  more  serious  matters ;  and, 
by  well-told  anecdotes  and  strong  appeals,  roused  their 
sympathies  in  the  object  of  his  interest,  he  might  then 
have  closed  with  his  appeal  for  aid,  with  a  strong 
probability  of  far  different  results. 

The  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  argument  is  to  be  heard  must  determine,  then, 
whether  it  is  best  to  state  frankly  at  the  end  of  the 
introduction  just  what  is  to  be  proved  true  or  false. 

The  Use  of  an  Outline  in  the  Introduction. 

Ordinarily,  the  introduction  to  a  forensic  gives,  in 
conviction,  only  what  the  question  is,  what  it  means;  but 
there  is  one  case  in  which  it  may  state,  in  addition,  even 
what  is  the  work  to  be  done.  When  it  is  clear  that  the 
development  of  a  subject,  because  of  technicality  or 
length,  will  be  hard  to  follow,  it  is  sometimes  wise  to 
give  at  the  end  of  the  introduction  a  rapid  outline  of  the 
treatment  planned  for  the  case.  Such  an  outline  is  a 
kind  of  plan  of  the  country  to  be  traversed  that  will 
make  the  way  clearer  as  the  reader  goes  over  it.  If, 
however,  for  one  of  the  reasons  pointed  out  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph,  such  an  outline  seems  likely  to  be 
prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  writer,  it  should,  of 
course,  be  omitted. 

The  Extent  to  which  Elegance  should  be  sought  in  an 
Introduction. 

Such  rudimentary  elegance  as  this  rule  requires  any 
writer  should  strive  for,  but  it  is  to  be  noted  that  though 
clearness  and  force  are  always  to  be  desired  in  forensic 


Argumentation.  277 

work,  elegance,  except  to  the  degree  just  explained,  is  not  / 
always  indispensable,  and  may  even  take  from  the  force 
of  the  phrasing.  He  who  is  writing  an  address  to  be 
delivered  to  a  set  of  half-educated  men,  to  some  Indians 
at  a  mission  chapel,  or  to  an  audience  of  agents  and  Indian 
braves  ;  he  who  is  to  speak  to  a  body  of  college  students, 
or  a  dinner-party  celebrating  some  historical  occasion, 
must  both  be  clear  and  forcible.  Certainly,  however, 
though  the  second  should  strive  to  be  not  only  clear  and 
forcible  but  also  elegant,  the  first,  in  an  effort  for  elegance, 
may  sacrifice  force,  for  that  which  will  most  effectively 
convey  his  meaning  to  his  auditors  may  be  phrases  not 
sanctioned  by  any  book  on  rhetoric.  It  is  not  improbable, 
too,  that  elegance  of  speech  in  such  a  case  may  irritate  the 
hearers,  and  hence  not  only  spoil  the  force  of  the  speaker 
but  weaken  his  persuasive  effect.  Elegance  in  introduc- 
tions, then,  unlike  clearness  and  force,  varies  in  its  desir- 
ability, and  only  study  of  the  circumstances  of  the  partic- 
ular case  can  determine  the  need  of  it.  Indeed,  as  the 
last  sentence  but  one  hinted,  study  of  the  extent  to  which 
elegance  should  be  used  takes  us  into  the  study  of  the 
methods  of  persuasion. 

Unfairly  Prejudicial  Introductions. 

When  briefs  were  under  discussion  students  were  warned 
against  prejudiced  introductions,  which  state  as  true  some- 
thing demanding  discussion.  Sometimes  in  developing  a- 
brief  introduction  into  the  beginning  of  a  forensic  a 
student  lets  the  prejudice  creep  in  that  was  not  in  his 
brief.  He  should  be  steadily  on  the  watch  for  this  fault.  \S 
Here  is  what  a  prejudiced  brief  introduction,  or  careless- 


278  A R  G  UMRNTA  TION. 

ness  in  developing  an  unprejudiced  brief  into  a  forensic, 
will  produce:  — 

"Was  Clement  XIV.  justified  in  Suppressing  the  Jesuits; 

in  1773? 

"  In  order  that  we  may  have  clearly  in  mind  the  subject  in 
hand,  let  us  consider  in  outline  the  history  of  the  Jesuits  from 
their  organization  by  Ignatius  Loyola  in  1540  to  their  suppres- 
sion by  Pope  Clement  XIV.  in  1273^  From  almost  the  day  of 
their  organization  they  increased  in  numbers  and  influence  with 
astonishing  rapidity.  In  1549  they  were  ten  (10)  in  number, 
while  in  1762  they  numbered  twenty-two  thousand  (22,000); 
and  their  gain  in  influence  is  even  more  remarkable.  By  clever 
strategy  they  gained  control  of  the  educational  system  of  conti- 
nental Europe,  filled  most  of  the  offices  in  the  Inquisition, 
became  the  confessors  and  confidential  advisers  of  kings,  and 
were  the  most  eloquent  and  influential  pulpit  orators.  Very 
large  numbers  of  Jesuits  went  as  missionaries  to  India,  China, 
North  and  South  America,  and  the  islands  of  the  sea,  and  their 
labors  were  rewarded  with  immense  numbers  of  converts  (many 
of  whom,  however,  returned  to  paganism  later).  In  Europe 
the  Jesuits  were  most  prominently  identified  with  the  political 
events  of  their  times.  Hundreds  of  charges  have  been  brought 
against  them.  They  are  accused  of  complicity  in  the  various 
attempts  on  Elizabeth's  life,  the  Gunpowder  Plotfthe  murder  of  j 
William  of  Orange,  and  the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Day, 
and  of  causing  the  Thirty  Years'  War  and  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. As  the  natural  result  of  such  charges,  not  satisfactorily  j 
explained  away,  they  came  into  extreme  unpopularity  and  dis-  \ 
favor,  which  led  to  their  expulsion  from  Portugal  in  1753,  from] 
France  in  1764,  and  their  suppression  by  Clement  XIV.  in 
I773-" 

It  is  clear  that  the  whole  effect  of  this  is  prejudicial 
against  the  Jesuits,  and  that  he  who  passes  unquestion-J 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  279 

ingly  the  phrases  "  by  clever  strategy,"  "  many  of  whom 
returned  to  paganism  later,"  "  such  charges,  not  satisfac- 
torily explained,"  is  well  on  his  way  to  grant  the  writer's 
conclusion  that  Clement  XIV.  was  justified  in  suppressing 
the  Jesuit  order. 

Summary. 

The  work  in  conviction,  then,  of  a  forensic  introduction 
is  to  develop,  always  with  as  much  clearness  and  force  as 
possible,  and  with  degrees  of  elegance  varying  according 
to  circumstances,  the  outline  of  the  well-planned  brief 
introduction. 

Persuasion  in  an  Introduction. 

There  are,  however,  conditions  of  Argumentation  in 
which  it  is  extremely  helpful,  or  even  indispensable,  to 
use  something  besides  the  method  of  conviction.  An 
introduction  to  a  forensic  may,  and  generally  should,  do 
more  than  merely  appeal  to  the  reason,  —  endeavor  to 
convince  ;  it  may  appeal  to  the  emotions,  —  endeavor  to 
persuade.  If  a  writer  or  speaker  knows  that  his  subject 
is  necessarily  technical  and  difficult  to  grasp  ;  that  it  is 
for  any  reason  —  for  instance,  because  of  the  mass  of  detail 
that  must  be  treated  in  it  —  likely  to  be  somewhat  dull  ; 
that  he  is  unknown  to  his  audience,  or  new  to  the  condi- 
tions under  which  he  speaks  ;  or  if  he  fears  that  his  audi- 
ence is  already  hostile,  or  likely  to  be  made  so  by  his 
words,  it  will  evidently  be  very  helpful  in  all  these  cases, 
indispensable,  perhaps,  in  the  last,  in  some  way  to  win  at 
the  outset  the  sympathy  of  the  audience  for  him  or 
his  subject.  If  this  is  not  done,  a  reader  or  hearer  may, 
because  of  dullness  in  the  subject,  hostility  to  the  writer 


280  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

or  speaker,  or  one  of  the  other  reasons  mentioned,  put 
aside  the  article,  or  leave  the  room,  before  the  thesis  is 
well  stated.  A  speaker  or  writer  may  also,  though  not  for 
any  of  the  reasons  given  above,  wish  at  times  to  impress 
on  his  audience  his  own  fitness  for  his  work,  or  the  unfit- 
ness of  his  opponent.  The  first  place  for  any  such  ampli- 
fying of  his  own  powers,  and  diminishing  of  the  value  of 
his  opponent's  abilities  is,  of  course,  in  the  introduction. 

An  Introduction  to  a  Technical  Subject. 

The  introduction  to  the  first  of  Professor  Huxley's 
Three  Lectures  on  Evolution  illustrates  the  value  of  per- 
suasion when  a  speaker  feels  that  he  has  a  subject  that 
may  be  dull  because  of  the  detail  and  technicality  neces- 
sary in  treating  it.  Professor  Huxley  first  pointed  out 
the  significance  for  every  man  of  the  problems  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  made  each  of  his  hearers  recognize  that  in 
language  far  from  technical  he  had  at  times  considered 
the  very  problem  to  be  discussed  at  the  lecture.  At  once 
each  hearer  gained  a  personal  interest  in  the  discussion. 
It  could  hardly  be  dull  for  him  as  he  gradually  saw  the 
bearing,  the  significance  of  the  details,  not  for  a  mere 
scientific  problem,  but  for  a  question  that  had  often  puz- 
zled him,  and  which  he  could  feel  sure  was,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  if  not  settled,  likely  to  recur  and  bother  him. 

"  We  live  in  and  form  part  of  a  system  of  things  of  immense 
diversity  and  complexity,  which  we  call  Nature ;  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  the  deepest  interest  to  all  of  us  that  we  should  form 
just  conceptions  of  the  constitution  of  that  system  and  of  its 
past  history.  With  relation  to  this  universe,  man  is,  in  extent, 
little  more  than  a  mathematical  point ;  in  duration  but  a  fleet- 


ARG UMENTA  TION.  28 1 

ing  shadow  ;  he  is  a  mere  reed  shaken  in  the  winds  of  force. 
But,  as  Pascal  long  ago  remarked,  although  a  mere  reed,  he  is 
a  thinking  reed ;  and  in  virtue  of  that  wonderful  capacity  of 
thought,  he  has  the  power  of  framing  for  himself  a  symbolic 
conception  of  the  universe,  which,  although  doubtless  highly 
imperfect  and  inadequate  as  a  picture  of  the  great  whole,  is 
yet  sufficient  to  serve  him  as  a  chart  for  the  guidance  of  his 
practical  affairs.  It  has  taken  long  ages  of  toilsome  and  often 
fruitless  labor  to  enable  man  to  look  steadily  at  the  shifting  scenes 
of  the  phantasmagoria  of  Nature,  to  notice  what  is  fixed  among 
her  fluctuations,  and  what  is  regular  among  her  apparent  irreg- 
ularities ;  and  it  is  only  comparatively  lately,  within  the  last  few 
centuries,  that  the  conception  of  a  universal  order  and  of  a 
definite  course  of  things,  which  we  term  the  course  of  Nature, 
has  emerged.  But,  once  originated,  the  conception  of  the  con- 
stancy of  the  order  of  Nature  has  become  the  dominant  idea  of 
modern  thought.  To  any  person  who  is  familiar  with  the  facts 
upon  which  that  conception  is  based,  and  is  competent  to  esti- 
mate their  significance,  it  has  ceased  to  be  conceivable  that 
chance  should  have  any  place  in  the  universe,  or  that  events 
should  depend  upon  any  but  the  natural  sequence  of  cause  and 
effect.  We  have  come  to  look  upon  the  present  as  the  child  of 
the  past  and  as  the  parent  of  the  future  ;  and,  as  we  have  ex- 
cluded chance  from  a  place  in  the  universe,  so  we  ignore,  even 
as  a  possibility,  the  notion  of  any  interference  with  the  order  of 
Nature.  Whatever  may  be  men's  speculative  doctrines,  it  is 
quite  certain  that  every  intelligent  person  guides  his  life  and 
risks  his  fortune  upon  the  belief  that  the  order  of  Nature  is 
constant,  and  that  the  chain  of  natural  causation  is  never 
broken. 

"In  fact,  no  belief  which  we  entertain  has  so  complete  a 
logical  basis  as  that  to  which  I  have  just  referred.  It  tacitly 
underlies  every  process  of  reasoning ;  it  is  the  foundation  of 
every  act  of  the  will.  It  is  based  upon  the  broadest  induction, 
and  it  is  verified  by  the  most  constant,  regular,  and  universal  of 


282  A  R  G  U ME  NT  A  T/ON 

deductive  processes.  But  we  must  recollect  that  any  human 
belief,  however  broad  its  basis,  however  defensible  it  may  seem, 
is,  after  all,  only  a  probable  belief,  and  that  our*  widest  and 
safest  generalizations  are  simply  statements  of  lie  highest  i 
degree  of  probability.  Though  we  are  quite  clear* about  the 
constancy  of  the  order  of  Nature,  at  the  present  time,  and  in 
the  present  state  of  things,  it  by  no  means  necessarily  follows 
that  we  are  justified  in  expanding  this  generalization  into  the 
infinite  past,  and  in  denying,  absolutely,  that  there  may  have 
been  a  time  when  Nature  did  not  follow  a  fixed  order,  when 
the  relations  of  cause  and  effect  were  not  definite,  and  when 
extra-natural  agencies  interfered  with  the  general  course  of 
Nature.  Cautious  men  will  allow  that  a  universe  so  different 
from  that  which  we  know  may  have  existed ;  just  as  a  very 
candid  thinker  may  admit  that  a  world  in  which  two  and  two 
do  not  make  four,  and  in  which  two  straight  lines  do  enclose 
a  space,  may  exist.  But  the  same  caution  which  forces  the 
admission  of  such  possibilities  demands  a  great  deal  of  evidence 
before  it  recognizes  them  to  be  anything  more  substantial. 
And  when  it  is  asserted  that,  so  many  thousand  years  ago 
events  occurred  in  a  manner  utterly  foreign  to  and  inconsistent 
with  the  existing  laws  of  Nature,  men  who,  without  being  par- 
ticularly cautious,  are  simply  honest  thinkers,  unwilling  to 
deceive  themselves  or  delude  others,  ask  for  trustworthy  evi- 
dence of  the  fact. 

"  Did  things  so  happen,  or  did  they  not  i  This  is  a  histori- 
cal question,  and  one  the  answer  to  which  must  be  sought  in 
the  same  way  as  the  solution  of  any  other  historical  problem."  j 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  60-63. 


ARGUMENTATION.  283 

An  Introduction  when  the  Speaker  is  Unknown. 

The  well-known  opening  lines  of  the  verses  so  often 
recited  by  school-boys, 

"  You  'd  scarce  expect  one  of  my  age 
To  speak  in  public  on  the  stage," 

recognize  the  value,  when  a  speaker  is  unknown  to  an 
audience,  of  winning  their  sympathy  at  the  outset.  The 
following  extract  is  from  a  speech  written  by  Lysias  for  an 
Athenian  to  deliver  in  behalf  of  his  Theban  friend, 
Pherenicus.  It  shows  an  effort  to  win  sympathy  because 
the  speaker  is  not  a  well-known  pleader  in  the  courts. 

"  I  think,  judges,  I  must  first  tell  you  of  my  friendship  with 
Pherenicus,  lest  some  of  you  should  wonder  why  I,  who  have 
never  been  any  man's  advocate  before,  am  his  now.  His  father, 
Cephisodotus,  was  my  friend,  judges  ;  and  when  we  were  exiles 
at  Thebes  I  stayed  with  him  —  I,  and  any  other  Athenian  who 
would  ;  and  many  were  the  good  offices,  public  and  private, 
that  we  received  from  him  before  we  came  home.  Well,  when 
he  and  his  son  had  the  like  fortune,  and  came  to  Athens  ban- 
ished men,  I  thought  that  I  owed  them  the  fullest  recompense, 
and  made  them  so  thoroughly  at  home  in  my  house  that  no  one 
coming  in  could  have  told,  unless  he  knew  before,  whether  it 
belonged  to  them  or  to  me.  Pherenicus  knows,  as  well  as  other 
people,  judges,  that  there  are  plenty  of  better  speakers  than  I, 
and  better  experts  in  affairs  of  this  kind  ;  but  still  he  thinks 
that  my  close  friendship  is  the  best  thing  he  can  trust  to.  So, 
when  he  appeals  to  me  and  asks  me  to  give  him  my  honest 
help,  I  think  it  would  be  a  shame  to  let  him  be  deprived,  if  I 
can  help  it,  of  what  Androcleides  gave  him."  l 

It  would  be  hard  for  any  fair-minded  audience  to  refuse 
its  sympathy  to  the  modesty  and  the  "stanch  friendship" 

1  Attic  Orators,  R.  C.  Jebb,  vol.  II,  pp.  279,  280.     Macmillan  &  Co.,  1893. 


284  ARGUMENTATION. 

of  this  speaker.  That  such  a  man  thought  Pherenicus 
worthy  of  so  strong  a  friendship  might  even  predispose 
the  audience  in  favor  of  his  client.  The  following  open- 
ing of  a  speech  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  delivered  in  Colum- 
bus, Ohio,  shows  an  effort  to  win  sympathy  because  the 
speaker  was  not  well  known  to  his  audience  :  — 

"Fellow-citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio:  I  cannot  fail 
to  remember  that  I  appear  for  the  first  time  before  an  audience 
in  this  now  great  State,  —  an  audience  that  is  accustomed  to 
hear  such  speakers  as  Corwin,  and  Chase,  and  Wade,  and 
many  other  renowned  men ;  and  remembering  this,  I  feel  that 
it  will  be  well  for  you,  as  for  me,  that  you  should  not  raise 
your  expectations  to  that  standard  to  which  you  would  have 
been  justified  in  raising  them  had  one  of  these  distinguished 
men  appeared  before  you.  You  would  perhaps  be  only  prepar- 
ing a  disappointment  for  yourselves,  and,  as  a  consequence  of 
your  disappointment,  mortification  for  me.  I  hope,  therefore, 
that  you  will  commence  with  very  moderate  expectations ;  and 
perhaps,  if  you  will  give  me  your  attention,  I  shall  be  able  to 
interest  you  in  a  moderate  degree."  * 

An  Introduction  when   the  Audience  may   become 
Hostile. 

The  value  of  winning  sympathy  at  the  outset  when  a 
speaker  or  writer  fears  that  later  he  may  arouse  by  his 
words  the  hostility  of  his  audience  is  shown  by  the 
opening  paragraph  of  the  "First  Letter  of  Junius."  An 
unknown  person  is  to  say  very  startling  words  about 
those  high  in  authority,  is  to  make  statements  that  will 
by  their  audacity  so  shock  some  of  his  readers  that  they 

1  Abraham  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  vol.  I,' p.  538.  Nicolay  &  Hay. 
Century  Co.,  1894. 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  285 

are  liable,  though  agreeing  that  wrong  exists,  to  draw 
back.  It  is  important,  then,  for  the  writer  to  find  some 
common  ground  at  the  outset  upon  which  he  and  most  of 
his  readers  can  agree.  Then,  later,  when  men  are  dis- 
posed to  draw  back  because  of  the  daring  of  his  criticism, 
they  will  see  that  his  censures  are  but  the  logical  outcome 
of  the  statements  they  agreed  to  at  the  beginning  of  the 
letter,  and  will  be  less  likely  to  revolt.  Junius,  as  the 
following  will  show,  first  puts  before  his  readers  a  general 
proposition  which  they  will  readily  accept ;  then,  with  a 
sudden  turn,  makes  a  special  application  of  it,  and 
throughout  his  letter  simply  adds  detail  to  detail  of  his 
special  case. 

"Sir  :  The  submission  of  a  free  people  to  the  executive 
authority  of  government  is  no  more  than  a  compliance  with 
laws  which  they  themselves  have  enacted.  While  the  national 
honor  is  firmly  maintained  abroad,  and  while  justice  is  impar- 
tially administered  at  home,  the  obedience  of  the  subject  will 
be  voluntary,  cheerful,  and  I  might  say,  almost  unlimited.  A 
generous  nation  is  grateful  even  for  the  preservation  of  its 
rights,  and  willingly  extends  the  respect  due  to  the  office  of  a 
good  prince  into  an  affection  for  his  person.  Loyalty,  in  the 
heart  and  understanding  of  an  Englishman,  is  a  rational 
attachment  to  the  guardian  of  the  laws.  Prejudices  and  pas- 
sion have  sometimes  carried  it  to  a  criminal  length ;  and 
whatever  foreigners  may  imagine,  we  know  that  Englishmen 
have  erred  as  much  in  a  mistaken  zeal  for  particular  persons 
and  families,  as  they  ever  did  in  defense  of  what  they  thought 
most  dear  and  interesting  to  themselves. 

"  It  naturally  fills  us  with  resentment  to  see  such  a  temper 
insulted  and  abused.  In  reading  the  history  of  a  free  people 
whose  rights  have  been  invaded,  we  are  interested  in  their 
cause.     Our  own  feelings  tell  us  how  long  they  ought  to  have 


286  ARGUMENTATION. 

submitted,  and  at  what  moment  it  would  have  been  treachery 
to  themselves  not  to  have  resisted.  How  much  warmer  will 
be  our  resentment  if  experience  should  bring  the  fatal  example 
home  to  ourselves  ! 

"  The  situation  of  this  country  is  alarming  enough  to  rouse 
the  attention  of  every  man  who  pretends  to  a  concern  for  the 
public  welfare."  l 

An   Introduction  when  the  Audience  is  Hostile. 

Without  persuasion  Henry  Ward  Beecher  could  never 
have  won  a  hearing  for  the  argumentative  part  of  his 
speech  in  Liverpool,  in  1863,  in  behalf  of  the  Northern 
States.  These  were  the  conditions  under  which  he 
spoke  :  — 

"When  Mr.  Beecher  went  to  England  in  1863,  English 
friends  of  the  North  urged  him  to  speak  publicly  for  Northern 
interests.  They  felt  that  as  champions  of  the  North  they  had 
been  treated  with  contempt  and  vilification,  and  that  unless  he, 
as  a  prominent  Abolitionist,  should  recognize  their  efforts,  they 
were  lost.  .  .  .  Liverpool  was  the  headquarters  of  the  Southern 
sympathizers,  and  a  great  many  Southern  men  were  in  the 
city.  The  feeling  was  very  strong  that  if  Mr.  Beecher  should 
succeed  there,  he  would  win  the  day;  and  a  determined  and 
desperate  effort  was  to  be  made  to  prevent  the  delivery  of  the 
speech.  The  streets  were  placarded  with  abusive  and  scurri- 
lous posters,  urging  Englishmen  to  'see  that  he  gets  the 
welcome  he  deserves.'  On  the  morning  of  the  16th  the  lead- 
ing papers  came  out  with  violent  and  false  editorials  against 
Mr.  Beecher.  It  was  openly  declared  that  if  he  should  dare  to 
address  the  meeting,  he  would  never  leave  the  hall  alive.  It 
was  well  known  that  the  mob  was  armed ;  not  so  well  known 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  42-44. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  287 

that  a  small  armed  band  of  young  men  were  in  a  commanding 
position  at  the  right  of  the  stage,  determined,  if  any  outbreak 
occurred,  to  protect  Mr.  Beecher. 

"  The  great  hall  was  packed  to  the  crushing  point.  For 
some  moments  before  the  time  fixed  for  the  commencement  of 
the  proceedings  there  were  cat-calls,  groans,  cheers,  and  hisses, 
and  it  was  evident  that  a  strong  force  of  the  pro-Southern  (or 
at  least  of  the  anti-Beecher)  party  had  congregated  in  front  of 
the  gallery  and  at  the  lower  end  of  the  body  of  the  hall.  .  .  .  Mr. 
Beecher  was  evidently  prepared  for  some  opposition  ;  but  he 
could  hardly  have  expected  that  his  appearance  at  the  front  of 
the  platform  would  rouse  one  portion  of  the  audience  to  a  high 
state  of  enthusiasm,  and  cause  the  other  portion  to  approach 
almost  a  state  of  frenzy.  For  some  time  it  was  doubtful 
whether  he  would  be  allowed  to  speak  ;  but  those  who  sat  near 
him  and  observed  his  firmly  compressed  lips  and  imperturbable 
demeanor,  saw  at  once  that  it  would  require  something  more 
than  noise  and  spasmodic  hisses  to  cause  Mr.  Beecher  to  lose 
heart.  He  stood  calmly  at  the  edge  of  the  platform,  waiting 
for  the  roise  to  cease.  At  last  there  was  a  lull,  and  the 
chairman  made  an  appeal  to  the  meeting  for  fair  play.  His 
assurance  that  Mr.  Beecher,  after  his  speech,  would  answer 
any  questions  which  any  one  might  care  to  ask  was  not  very 
favorably  received,  and  a  series  of  disturbances  followed. 
When  the  scuffling  had  partly  subsided,  the  chairman  expressed 
his  determination  to  preserve  order  by  calling  in,  if  necessary, 
the  aid  of  the  police.  This  announcement  produced  something 
like  order,  and  Mr.  Beecher  took  up  the  advantage  and  began 
his  address."  x 

In  some  way  Beecher  must  show  himself  worthy  of  the 
sympathy  of  the  part  of  the  audience  favoring  him,  must 
increase  its  interest  to  enthusiasm,  and  must  shame  or 

1  Biography  of  II.  W.  Beecher,  by  W.  C.  Beecher  and  Rev.  S.  Scoville. 


288  ARGUMENTA  T/OAT. 

startle  the  hostile  portion  into  attention.     Here  is  what 
Beecher  said  :  — 

"  For  more  than  twenty-five  years  I  have  been  made  perfect- 
ly familiar  with  popular  assemblies  in  all  parts  of  my  country 
except  the  extreme  South.  There  has  not  for  the  whole  of 
that  time  been  a  single  day  of  my  life  when  it  would  have 
been  safe  for  me  to  go  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  in 
my  own  country,  and  all  for  one  reason  :  my  solemn,  earnest, 
persistent  testimony  against  that  which  I  consider  to  be  the 
most  atrocious  thing  under  the  sun  —  the  system  of  American 
slavery  in  a  great  free  republic.  [Cheers.]  I  have  passed 
through  that  early  period  when  right  of  free  speech  was  denied 
to  me.  Again  and  again  I  have  attempted  to  address  audiences 
that,  for  no  other  crime  than  that  of  free  speech,  visited  me 
with  all  manner  of  contumelious  epithets ;  and  now  since  I 
have  been  in  England,  although  I  have  met  with  greater  kind- 
ness and  courtesy  on  the  part  of  most  than  I  deserved,  yet,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  perceive  that  the  Southern  influence  prevails 
to  some  extent  in  England.  [Applause  and  uproar.]  It  is 
my  old  acquaintance  ;  I  understand  it  perfectly  —  [laughter] 
—  and  I  have  always  held  it  to  be  an  unfailing  truth  that 
where  a  man  had  a  cause  that  would  bear  examination  he  was 
perfectly  willing  to  have  it  spoken  about.  [Applause.]  And 
when  in  Manchester  I  saw  those  huge  placards :  '  Who  is 
Henry  Ward  Beecher?'  —  [laughter,  cries  of  "Quite  right," 
and  applause]  —  and  when  in  Liverpool  I  was  told  that  there 
were  those  blood-red  placards,  purporting  to  say  what  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  had  said,  and  calling  upon  Englishmen  to  sup- 
press free  speech  —  I  tell  you  what  I  thought.  1  thought 
simply  this:  'I  am  glad  of  it.'  [Laughter.]  Why?  Be- 
cause if  they  had  felt  perfectly  secure,  that  you  are  the  minions 
of  the  South  and  the  slaves  of  slavery,  they  would  have  been 
perfectly  still.  [Applause  and  uproar.]  And,  therefore,  when 
I  saw  so  much  nervous  apprehension  that,  if  I  were  permitted 


ARGUMENTATION.  289 

to  speak  —  [hisses  and  applause]  —  when  I  found  they  were 
afraid  to  have  me  speak  —  [hisses,  laughter,  and  "No,  no!"] 

—  when  I  found  that  they  considered  my  speaking  dam- 
aging to  their  cause  —  [applause]  —  when  I  found  that  they 
appealed  from  facts  and  reasonings  to  mob  law  —  [applause 
and  uproar]  —  I  said,  no  man  need  tell  me  what  the  heart  and 
secret  council  of  these  men  are.  They  tremble  and  are  afraid. 
"Applause,  laughter,  hisses,  "  No,  no  !  "  and  a  voice  :  u  New 
York  mob."]  Now,  personally,  it  is  a  matter  of  very  little  con- 
sequence to  me  whether  I  speak  here  to-night  or  not.  [Laughter 
and  cheers.]  But,  one  thing  is  very  certain,  if  you  do  permit  me 
to  speak  here  to-night  you  will  hear  very  plain  talking.  [Ap- 
plause and  hisses.]     You  will  not  find  a  man  —  [interruption] 

—  you  will  not  find  me  to  be  a  man  that  dared  to  speak  about 
Great  Britain  three  thousand  miles  off,  and  then  is  afraid  to 
speak  to  Great  Britain  when  he  stands  on  her  shores.  [Im- 
mense applause  and  hisses.]  And  if  I  do  not  mistake  the 
tone  and  temper  of  Englishmen,  they  had  rather  have  a  man 
who  opposes  them  in  a  manly  way  —  [applause  from  all  parts 
of  the  hall]  —  than  a  sneak  that  agrees  with  them  in  an 
unmanly  way.  [Applause  and  "  Bravo ! "]  Now,  if  I  can 
carry  you  with  me  by  sound  convictions,  I  shall  be  immensely 
glad  —  [applause]  ;  but  if  I  cannot  carry  you  with  me  by  facts 
and  sound  arguments,  I  do  not  wish  you  to  go  with  me  at  all ; 
and  all  that  I  ask  is  simply  fair  play.  [Applause,  and  a 
voice  :  "You  shall  have  it,  too."] 

"  Those  of  you  who  are  kind  enough  to  wish  to  favor  my 
speaking,  —  and  you  will  observe  that  my  voice  is  slightly 
husky,  from  having  spoken  almost  every  night  in  succession 
for  some  time  past,  —  those  who  wish  to  hear  me  will  do 
me  the  kindness  simply  to  sit  still,  and  to  keep  still ;  and  I 
and  my  friends  the  Secessionists  will  make  all  the  noise. 
[Laughter.]"  * 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  156-IC8, 


290  ARGUMENTATION. 

In  this  case,  then,  in  which  the  unpopularity  of  the 
speaker  and  his  cause  with  a  large  part  of  the  audience 
was  so  great  as  to  endanger  his  life,  Mr.  Beecher 
won  a  hearing  for  his  argument  chiefly  by  showing 
that  he  was  undaunted,  determined,  sincere,  —  three 
qualities  sure  to  win  sympathy  from  a  British  audience. 
Resting  on  the  proof  his  very  words  gave  of  his  posses- 
sion of  these  qualities,  he  appealed  to  his  audience  to 
grant  him  only  what  any  Britisher  is  supposed  to  be  wil- 
ling to  grant  any  man,  —  "fair  play."  While  leading  up 
to  this  appeal,  Beecher  managed  very  skillfully  to  render 
the  conduct  of  those  who  opposed  him,  or  who  should  inter- 
rupt his  speech,  prejudicial  to  their  cause.  Lastly,  the 
imperturbability  of  his  manner,  the  easy  good-nature  of 
his  remark  that  "  I  and  my  friends  the  Secessionists  will 
make  all  the  noise,"  won  respect  and  sympathy.  As  a 
result  of  this  masterly  persuasive  effort  Beecher  was  able 
to  develop  the  purely  convincing  part  of  his  introduc- 
tion and  the  earlier  part  of  his  argument  without  serious 
interruption. 

Amplifying  One's  own   Fitness  for  the  Work  in  Hand. 

In  the  following  extract  from  the  opening  of  Dryden's 
Defence  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  the  poet,  by 
ironic  praise  and  mock  self-depreciation,  succeeds  in  mak- 
ing a  reader  feel  the  probable  incompetence  of  his 
opponent  and  his  own  fitness  for  the  work  criticised 
—  purely  persuasive  work:  — 

"  But  while  I  was  thus  employed  about  this  impression,  there 
came  to  my  hands  a  new  printed  play,  called  The  Great  Favour- 
ite, or  The  Duke  of  Lerma ;  the  author  of  which,  a  noble  and 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  291 

most  ingenious  person,  has  done  me  the  favour  to  make  some 
observations  and  animadversions  upon  my  Dramatique  Essay. 
I  must  confess  he  might  have  better  consulted  his  reputation, 
than  by  matching  himself  with  so  weak  an  adversary.  But  if 
his  honour  be  diminished  in  the  choice  of  his  antagonist,  it  is 
sufficiently  recompensed  in  the  election  of  his  cause :  which 
being  the  weaker,  in  all  appearance,  as  combating  the  received 
opinions  of  the  best  ancient  and  modern  authors,  will  add  to 
his  glory,  if  he  overcome,  and  to  the  opinion  of  his  generosity, 
if  he  be  vanquished  :  since  he  ingages  at  so  great  odds,  and, 
so  like  a  cavalier,  undertakes  the  protection  of  the  weaker 
party.  I  have  only  to  fear  on  my  own  behalf,  that  so  good  a 
cause  as  mine  may  not  suffer  by  my  ill  management,  or  weak 
defence ;  yet  I  cannot  in  honour  but  take  the  glove,  when  't  is 
offered  me :  though  I  am  only  a  champion  by  succession  ;  and 
no  more  able  to  defend  the  right  of  Aristotle  and  Horace, 
than  an  infant  Dimock  to  maintain  the  title  of  a  King. 

"  For  my  own  concernement  in  the  controversie,  it  is  so 
small,  that  I  can  easily  be  contented  to  be  driven  from  a  few 
notions  of  Dramatique  Poesie ;  especially  by  one,  who  has. the 
reputation  of  understanding  all  things:  and  I  might  justly  make 
that  excuse  for  my  yielding  to  him,  which  the  Philosopher  made 
to  the  Emperor,  —  why  should  I  offer  to  contend  with  him,  who 
is  master  of  more  than  tiuenty  legions  of  arts  and  sciences  ?  But 
I  am  forced  to  fight,  and  therefore  it  will  be  no  shame  to  be 
overcome."  1 


The  Difference  between  Fair  and  Unfair  Prejudice. 

This  last  quotation,  particularly,  suggests  that  there 
may  seem  to  be  a  contradiction  between  the  rule  given  on 
p.  277,  as  to  prejudiced  introductions,  and  what  has  just  been 

1  A  Defence  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  Dryden,  pp.  101,  102,  Clar- 
endon Press,  1889. 


292  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

said  as  to  the  desirability  of  winning  sympathy  for  one's 
self,  of  creating  a  prejudice  in  one's  favor,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  a  speech  or  article.  Really,  however,  there  is  no 
contradiction,  for  the  reader  was  in  the  first  case  warned 
only  not  to  make  statements  as  undisputed  which  are 
open  to  debate,  not  to  refer  to  matters  as  true  which  may 
not  be  true;  that  is,  he  was  told  not  to  be  unfairly  preju- 
diced. In  what  has  been  said  of  persuasive  introductions 
he  is  not  advised  to  make  assertions  that  need  support, 
but  to  find  in  undebatable  matters  suggested  by  the  work 
in  hand  what  will  prejudice  an  audience  in  his  favor  or 
against  his  opponent.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  none  of  the 
cited  introductions  is  any  debatable  matter  used  to  gain 
the  prejudicial  effect.  The  difference  between  the  two 
kinds  of  work  is  that  between  creating  an  unfair,  and  a 
fair  prejudice. 

The    Relative  Proportions  of  Conviction  and  Persua- 
sion in  an  Introduction. 

An  introduction  may,  then,  depend  for  its  force  on 
conviction  or  on  persuasion.  The  proportions  in,  which 
the  two  mingle  must,  like  the  number  of  the  possible 
parts  of  analysis  represented  in  an  introduction,  depend 
on  the  nature  of  the  subject.  The  proportions  may  range 
from  introductions  wholly  without  persuasion,  through 
those  that  have  but  little,  to  those  in  which  conviction 
and  persuasion  mingle  as  subtly  as  in  the  introduction  to 
the  Defence  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  by  Lord  Erskine.1 
Examination  of  the  introductions  cited  will  show  that  the 
amount  of  persuasion  in  an  introduction  depends  wholly 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  p.  86. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  293 

upon  the  circumstances  under  which  the  speech  is  made. 
To  decide  to  what  extent  and  how  to  be  persuasive  are 
matters  requiring  a  knowledge  of  the  emotional  side 
of  human  nature,  —  of  what  produces  action  in  man. 
These  subjects,  by  no  means  easy  to  grasp,  are  to  be 
treated  in  the  next  chapter,  under  the  heading  Persuasion 
—  that  which  aims  not  merely  to  convince  a  man,  but 
also  to  produce  in  him  action  as  a  result  of  his  conviction. 
It  is  enough  for  the  present  that  a  student  should  realize 
that  in  most  good  argumentation  the  introduction  has 
as  much  work  to  do  in  persuasion  as  in  conviction. 

The  Argument  Itself. 

Like  the  Introduction,  the  Argument  itself  may  do  a 
twofold  work.  It  may  simply  convince  by  giving  in  a 
literary  form  the  evidence  for  which  the  carefully  con- 
structed brief  proper  calls,  or  it  may  appeal  to  the 
emotions,  —  persuade.  When  it  does  the  latter,  it  finds  in 
the  different  proofs  offered  that  which  will  stir  a  reader 
or  hearer  against  the  opponent  or  his  thesis  or  in  behalf 
of  the  arguer  or  his  ideas.  The  great  essentials  in  the 
argument  proper  are,  both  from  the  argumentative  and 
from  the  literary  point  of  view,  unity,  clearness,  and  force. 
Whether  elegance  is  desirable  will,  as  was  pointed  out 
on  p.  276,  depend  on  the  nature  of  the  public  addressed. 

Unity,  Clearness,  and  Force  in  the  Argument  Proper. 

If  the  brief  has  been  well  drawn,  that  is,  if  the  relations 
of  the  main  idea  and  the  other  ideas  necessary  in  the  dis- 
cussion have  been  correctly  determined;  if  as  climactic  as 
possible  an  arrangement  has  been  made  of  the  parts,  and 


294  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

if  the  transitions  from  division  to  division  have  been  so 
neatly  managed  that  each  seems  to  grow  out  of  that  which 
preceded  it,  then  the  unity  of  the  argument  proper  should 
be  good.  A  writer  needs,  however,  to  watch  his  phrasing 
as  he  passes  from  paragraph  to  paragraph  within  the 
divisions  of  the  argument  proper.  Often  the  paragraphs 
of  a  forensic  are  independent  and  apparently  mutually 
repellent  blocks  of  thought.  The  ideal  work  is  that  in 
which  each  sentence  of  a  paragraph  develops  naturally 
into  the  next,  each  paragraph  develops  into  that  which  fol- 
lows it,  each  division  leads  to  the  one  succeeding.  Such 
unity  gives  not  only  clearness  and  force,  but  also  ease,  a 
flowing  style.  How  disjointed  and  how  awkward  in 
phrasing  are  forensics  not  based  on  a  well-unified  brief, 
and  not  carefully  phrased  in  the  transitions  from  part  to 
part,  the  "  Beaconsfield  "  forensic  on  p.  182  shows.  For1 
the  ease  that  comes  from  neatly  phrased  transitions  in 
thought  see  Pitt's  SpeecJi  on  the  Slave  Trade  and  Grat-  \ 
tan's  Declaration  of  IrisJi  Rights} 

Whatever  was  suggested  in  the  sections  treating  the 
brief  proper  as  likely  to  lead  to  clearness  and  force  in  j 
drawing  briefs  will,  of  course,  produce  these  effects  in  the  ] 
forensic.  A  knowledge  of  evidence,  of  the  ways  in  which 
to  sift  it,  will  give  a  reader  evidence  that  is  clear  and 
forcible.  Also  an  ability  to  phrase  one's  ideas  clearly  and 
forcibly  will  aid  greatly.  There  are,  moreover,-  certain 
suggestions,  particularly  in  regard  to  presenting,  handling 
evidence,  apart  from  testing  it,  which  it  seems  best  to 
consider  here.  A  careful  regard  for  them  will  add  to  the 
clearness  and  force  of  the  argument  proper. 

1  Selected  Orations.     Camelot  Series,  pp.  120-165. 


ARGUMENTATION.  295 

Suggestions  for  Handling  Evidence. 

i.  The  Order:  Proposition,  Proof.  —  The  law  given  for 
the  argumentative  part  of  the  brief,  that  the  propositio?i 
should  always  precede  the  proof,  does  not  hold  rigidly  for 
the  forensic.  In  the  brief  it  was  necessary,  in  order  that 
any  one  looking  it  over  might,  with  the  least  expendi- 
ture of  time  and  trouble,  see  just  what  was  to  be  proved, 
and  how.  What  was  said  on  p.  274  of  the  occasional 
advantage  to  be  derived  from  holding  back  any  statement 
of  just  the  thesis  to  be  proved  until  the  writer  is  ready  to 
state  it  as  the  conclusion  applies  as  well  to  the  main 
thesis  of  any  division.  I  If  any  tiling  is  to  be  gained  by  lead- 
ing up  step  by  step  to  a  conclusion  that  is  revealed  only  as 
the  writer  turns  to  a  new  division,  this  is  a  desirable 
method  in  the  forensic. 

2.  Do  not  quote  References  only.  —  A  writer  should  not 
make  a  Poole  s  Index  of  Jus  forensic.  That  is,  he  should 
not  write  a  series  of  assertions  about  his  main  thesis  and 
support  them  simply  by  numerous  references  to  articles  in 
periodicals,  chapters  or  passages  in  books,  which,  if  con- 
sulted by  the  reader,  will  give  him  thoroughly  trustworthy 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  writer's  ideas.  This  is  a  favorite 
method  with  beginners  in  Argumentation  who  lazily  dread 
the  work  of  copying  out  all  the  necessary  evidence.  Of 
course,  such  work  is  neither  clear  nor  forcible,  and  cannot 
be  convincing.  "  Trustworthy  "  is  used  above,  because  if 
the  writer  refers  to  evidence  that  does  not  support  him, 
or  that  may  have  two  or  more  interpretations,  he  falls  into 
the  fallacy  of  a  false  assumption  (p.  255),  or  into  that  of 
ambiguous  references  (p.  258). 

3 .  Put  References  on  the  Pages  where  they  belong.  — 
In  developing  a  brief  into  a  forensic  a  writer  should  not, 


296  ARGVMENTA  TION. 

from  the  desire  to  save  labor,  put  at  the  beginning  or  at 
the  end  of  his  forensic  the  names  of  all  the  books  or  docu- 
ments consulted,  and  tJien  expect  his  reader  to  place  rightly 
among  these  each  quotation  made  in  his  pages.  Nor  should 
he  be  satisfied  with  such  a  list  after  putting  a  numeral 
before  each  book  in  it  and  repeating  this  numeral  in  the 
forensic  before  every  quotation  drawn  from  the  particjclar 
book.  Such  contrivances  to  save  the  writer's  time  waste 
the  patience  of  the  reader,  and  more  is  lost  than  is  gained. 
Whenever  a  quotation  is  made,  or  whenever  a  writer  gives 
only  the  gist  of  another  man's  writing  or  words,  the 
source  should  be  carefully  named  at  the  bottom  of  the 
page  —  the  title  of  the  book,  the  author,  the  volume,  the 
page,  and,  if  necessary,  the  edition  —  and  this  reference 
should  be  connected  by  some  sign  with  the  part  of  the 
text  it  supports. 

4.    Do    not    quote*    Conclusions    Merely,    unless    as    an 
Argument  from  AutJwrity.  —  A  writer  sJwuld  remember, 
also,  that  in  giving  evidence  he  is  not  to  quote  merely  a\ 
mans  conclusions,  unless  his  words  may  be  properly  regarded 
as  authoritative.     To  quote  them,  unless  in  the  exception 
made,  is  merely  to  shift  an  assertion  from  the  writer's' 
shoulders  to  those  of  other  men,  perhaps  even  less  known 
than  he  is  to  his  reader.     This  is  what  the  writer  on  the 
Eastern  Question  did  when  he  asserted  :  "  Lord  Beacons- 
field  said  that  Constantinople  is  the  Key  of  the  East  "I 
(see  p.  183).       Not  Lord   Beaconsfield's  conclusion,  but 
his  reasons  for  it,  are  what  should  be  given.     Professor! 
Dicey  recognized  the  truth  of  this  rule  in  his  treatment  of 
the  report  of  the  Parnell  Commission  :  — 

"  The  whole  of  the  document  signed  by  the  Commissioners, 
and  not  only  the  findings  which  summarize  their  conclusions, 


ARGUMENTATION.  297 

must  be  read   and  accepted   as   their  verdict   concerning  the 
matters  referred  to  their  decision. 

"  The  '  findings '  are  little  more  than  a  summary  of  the  results 
at  which  the  Commission  have  arrived.  The  findings,  indeed, 
if  read  alone,  are  hardly  intelligible,  and  at  any  rate  lose  half 
their  import.  The  word  'intimidation,'  for  example,  admits  of 
and  has  received  various  interpretations.  We  understand 
what  it  means  in  the  findings  only  when  we  have  read  the 
descriptions  and  the  examples  of  it  given  in  the  body  of  the 
Report.  When  we  read  in  Finding  No.  4,  that  the  respondents 
'  did  disseminate  the  Irish  World  and  other  newspapers  inciting 
to  the  commission  of  crime,'  we  hardly  know  what  was  their 
offense.  To  understand  its  nature  we  must  know  other  facts 
set  forth  in  the  Report;  we  must  learn  what  style  of  paper 
was  the  Irish  World,  and  what  its  connection  with  the  League. 
A  great  deal  more  again  follows  than  the  Parnellites  or  their 
English  allies  care  to  admit  from  the  fact  now  proclaimed  by 
the  Report  to  the  English-speaking  world,  that  United  Ireland 
had  been  from  the  first  the  official  organ  of  the  League,  and 
was  founded  by  Mr.  Parnell,  Mr.  W.  O'Brien,  and  other  Land 
Leaguers.  But  the  point  now  insisted  upon  needs  no  lengthy 
laboration.  Any  reader  of  intelligence  will  soon  see  that  it  is 
he  whole  Report,  arid  not  the  findings  alone,  which  must  be 
reated  as  the  judicial  decision  or  deliverance  of  the  Com- 
ssioners."  l 

Not  an  ally's  final  opinion,  then,  but  the  evidence  by 
vhich  he  reaches  it  is  the  important  matter  for  citation. 
5.  Do  not  refer  from  the  Argument  itself  to  the  Brief.  — 
writer  should  never,  because  he  has  given  evidence  fully 
u  his  brief,  refer  the  reader  to  the  brief  for  it.  Let  him 
emember  here,  as  everywhere  in  his  forensic,  that  the 
orensic   and   the   brief  are   separate  efforts,  and   repeat 

1  The  Verdict,  p.  7.     Dicey. 


298  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

at  the  proper  place  in  the  forensic  the  evidence  already 
given  in  the  brief. 

6.  Select,  even  in  Good  Evidence.  —  In  the  chapter  on 
Evidence  the  student  was  told  how  to  value  the  kinds  of 
evidence.  He  will  find  that  after  he  has  excluded  all  the 
bad  evidence,  even  then  he  must  select.  What  remains 
is  of  different  values.  Some  of  it  is  by  itself  conclusive. 
Other  bits  that  when  alone  are  not  conclusive  become  so 
when  combined  with  two  or  three  others  of  the  same  sort. 
There  will  be  some  that,  though  not  bad,  may  be  excluded 
by  the  worker  because  he  has  other  evidence  which  is 
more  convincing.  When  handling  evidence  a  student 
will  find  it  convenient  to  remember  the  old  distich, 

"  Where  one's  proofs  are  aptly  chosen 
Four  are  as  valid  as  four  dozen."  x 

Not  the  number  of  the  proofs,  but  their  convincingness,  is 
the  important  matter  in  evidence,  and  a  writer  should 
always  use  as  little  evidence  as  is  consistent  with  proving 
his  point.  By  this  means  he  gains  in  force,  for,  as  has 
been  justly  said,  "Proof  which  goes  for  nothing,  goes  for 
less  than  nothing"*  This  is  true  because  a  keen  reader, 
seeing  that  nothing  is  gained  by  the  presence  of  the 
proof  in  question,  is  forced  to  believe  that  the  writer 
thought  it  had  value  when  it  had  none,  or  was  willing  to 
palm  off  as  convincing  evidence  which  was  not,  or  was  a 
careless  workman.  Any  of  these  suppositions  will  make 
him  suspicious  of  the  man  and  of  all  his  work.  Hence 
the  proof  that  seemed  harmless  has  done  decided  harm. 

1  Quoted  by  J.  Q.  Adams,  Lectures  on  Oratory,  vol.  II,  p.  92. 

2  Theory  of  Preaching,  Phelps. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  299 

A  student  should  not,  however,  forget,  in  his  desire  to 
give  only  the  proof  absolutely  necessary,  that  some  ques- 
tions cannot  be  proved  true  by  one  instance,  one  bit  of 
evidence.  For  instance,  in  treating  the  question,  "  Should 
a  Federation  of  Great  Britain  and  her  Colonies  be 
formed?"  it  is  not  enough  to  show  that  this  would  be 
advantageous  for  Great  Britain,  or  for  Cape  Colony,  or 
New  South  Wales,  but  the  colonies  must  be  divided  into 
groups  whose  conditions  are  alike,  and  the  needs  of  each 
group  considered.  This  is  true,  as  was  pointed  out 
(p.  264)  of  the  question  "  Should  the  Australian  Ballot 
System  be  adopted  in  the  United  States  ?  "  That  is,  if  a 
student  does  not  remember  that  some  statements  cannot 
be  proved  true  by  a  single  instance,  no  matter  how  strong, 
he  will  fall  into  the  fallacy  of  proving  true  for  only  a  part 
what  should  be  proved  true  of  the  whole. 

7.  When  a  Witness  who  may  be  Unknown  is  used,  Alzvays 
explain  why  he  is  selected.  —  A  reader  should  never  be 
left  in  ignorance  as  to  the  respectability,  the  right  to  speak, 
of  any  witnesses  cited.  Far  too  often  college  students 
quote  evidence,  convincing  in  itself,  from  books  or  articles 
whose  writers  are  not  known  to  most  readers.  If  the 
students  have  learned  why  the  writers  are  to  be  trusted, 
they  should  give  this  information  before  the  evidence 
is  cited.  When  a  writer  quotes  David  Livingstone  or  H. 
M.  Stanley  on  something  connected  with  African  explor- 
ation, it  will  hardly  be  necessary  to  introduce  the  witness, 
but  there  are  many  reliable  writers  on  Africa  who  will 
be  unknown  to  nine  out  of  ten  of  the  readers  who  at  once 
recognize  Livingstone  and  Stanley  as  authorities.  In 
using  such  witnesses  it  is  necessary  simply  to  show  what 
qualifications  they  have  to  speak  on  the  subject  in  hand. 


300  ARGUMENTATION. 

Here,  for  instance,  is  the  way  in  which  Professor  Dicey 
in  his  consideration  of  the  verdict  of  the  Parnell  Commis- 
sion shows  why  he  thinks  all  readers  should  trust  the 
judges : — 

"  Of  the  honesty  of  the  three  judges,  of  their  intentional 
fairness,  of  their  unblemished  character,  of  their  judicial 
capacity,  it  is  needless  to  say  anything.  Their  special  qualifi- 
cations for  the  discharge  of  a  most  arduous  task  are  on  all 
hands  admitted.  The  means  possessed  by  them  for  ascer- 
taining the  truth  were,  strictly  speaking,  unparalleled;  these 
means  were  such  as  never  have  been,  and  probably  never 
again  will  be,  possessed  by  any  other  men,  whether  politicians 
or  magistrates.  Sir  James  Hannen  and  his  colleagues  saw 
and  heard  all  the  witnesses  whom  the  foes  or  the  defenders  of 
the  League  chose  to  produce ;  all  the  evidence  brought  forward 
was  given  on  oath,  it  was  subjected  to  the  test  of  the  most 
rigorous  cross-examination,  it  was  sifted  with  the  utmost  care 
without  any  regard  to  the  expenditure  either  of  time  or  of 
labor ;  the  lawyers  employed  on  either  side  were  the  picked 
men  of  the  legal  profession  in  England  and  in  Ireland.  No 
one's  mouth  was  closed.  The  one  circumstance  which  is 
supposed  to  detract  from  the  fairness  of  our  criminal  procedure 
—  the  compulsory  silence  of  the  accused  —  was  from  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  investigation  got  rid  of.  Every  respond- 
ent was  at  liberty  to  appear  and  make  whatever  statement  he 
chose  in  defence  of  himself  or  of  the  association  of  which  he 
was  a  member.  The  appearance  of  some  and  the  non-appear- 
ance of  others  among  the  Parnellites  incriminated  were  equally 
instructive.  The  non-production  of  proof  may  be  at  least  as 
suggestive  as  its  production ;  silence  may  tell  more  than 
speech.  Of  the  amount  of  the  evidence  brought  before  the 
Commission  Court  some  faint  conception  may  be  formed  by 
remembering  that  over  450  witnesses  were  examined,  that  the 
proceedings  in  court  lasted  for  128  days,  and  that  the  official 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  301 

account  of  them  fills  a  '  Bluebook '  of  eleven  huge  volumes, 
making  up  7,227  pages.  During  a  much  longer  period, 
moreover,  than  the  128  days  of  the  inquiry  the  effect  of  the 
evidence  was  before  the  minds  of  the  judges.  They  did  not 
deliver  any  hasty  decision;  months  elapsed  between  the  closing 
of  the  investigation  and  the  sending  in  of  their  Report.  If  the 
account  given  by  such  men  of  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from 
such  an  inquiry  is  not  to  be  treated  as  trustworthy  and  true,  it 
is  hard  to  say  what  is  the  evidence  on  which  any  man  can 
venture  to  rely."  x 

8.  Be  Concrete  in  Evidence. — Aim  ahvays  at  concrete- 
ncss  in  the  evidence  given.  Do  not  be  satisfied  with  an 
abstract  statement  when  it  can  be  clearly  illustrated.  In 
the  case  of  the  following  quotations,  how  much  better 
than  any  citation  of  the  mere  agreement  of  some  historian 
or  geographer  with  the  main  thesis  is  the  concrete  illus- 
tration of  what  the  writer  means  :  — 

"  Johnson  came  up  to  London  precisely  at  the  time  when 
the  condition  of  a  man  of  letters  was  most  miserable  and 
degraded.  It  was  a  dark  night  between  two  sunny  days.  The 
age  of  patronage  had  passed  away.  The  age  of  general 
curiosity  and  intelligence  had  not  arrived.  The  deficiency  of 
the  natural  demand  for  literature  was,  at  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
more  than  made  up  by  artificial  encouragement,  by  a  vast 
system  of  bounties  and  premiums.  There  was,  perhaps,  never 
a  time  at  which  the  rewards  of  literary  merit  were  so  splendid, 
at  which  men  who  could  write  well  found  such  easy  admittance 
into  the  most  distinguished  society,  and  to  the  highest  honors 
of  the  State.  The  chiefs  of  both  the  great  parties  into  which 
the  kingdom  was  divided  patronized  literature  with  emulous 
munificence.     Congreve,   when  he   had   scarcely  attained  his 

1  The  Verdict,  pp.  3,  4.     Dicey. 


302  ARGUMENTATION. 

majority,  was  rewarded  for  his  first  comedy  with  places  which 
made  him  independent  for  "life.  Smith,  though  his  Hippo! y- 
tus  and  Phaedra  failed,  would  have  been  consoled  with 
three  hundred  a  year  but  for  his  own  folly.  Rowe  was  not 
only  poet-laureate,  but  also  land  surveyor  of  the  customs  in  the 
port  of  London,  clerk  of  the  council  to  the  Prince  of  Wales, 
and  secretary  of  the  Presentations  to  the  Lord  Chancellor. 
Hughes  was  secretary  to  the  Commissions  of  the  Peace. 
Ambrose  Philips  was  Judge  of  the  Prerogative  Court  in 
Ireland.  Locke  was  Commissioner  of  Appeals  and  of  the 
Board  of  Trade.  Newton  was  Master  of  the  Mint.  Stepney 
and  Prior  were  employed  in  embassies  of  high  dignity  and 
importance.  Gay,  who  commenced  life  as  an  apprentice  to  a 
silk  mercer,  became  a  secretary  of  legation  at  five-and-twenty. 
It  was  to  a  poem  on  the  Death  of  Charles  the  Second,  and  to 
the  City  and  Country  Mouse,  that  Montague  owed  his  intro- 
duction into  public  life,  his  earldom,  his  garter,  and  his 
auditorship  of  the  exchequer.  Swift,  but  for  the  unconquerable 
prejudice  of  the  queen,  would  have  been  a  bishop.  Oxford, 
with  his  white  staff  in  his  hand,  passed  through  the  crowd  of 
his  suitors  to  welcome  Parnell,  when  that  ingenious  writer 
deserted  the  Whigs.  Steele  was  a  commissioner  of  stamps 
and  a  member  of  Parliament.  Arthur  Mainwaring  was  a 
commissioner  of  the  customs,  and  auditor  of  the  imprest. 
Tickell  was  secretary  to  the  Lords  Justices  of  Ireland.  Addi- 
son was  Secretary  of  State."  * 

"  I  have  never  yet  seen  any  chart  pictorial  enough  to  enable 
the  spectator  to  imagine  the  kind  of  contrast  in  physical  char- 
acter which  exists  between  Northern  and  Southern  countries. 
We  know  the  differences  in  detail,  but  we  have  not  that  broad 
glance  and  grasp  which  would  enable  us  to  feel  them  in  their 
fulness.  We  know  that  gentians  grow  on  the  Alps,  and  olives 
on  the  Apennines  ;  but  we  do  not  enough  conceive  for  our- 

1  Essays  on  Crofter's  BoswelVs  Johnson,  pp.  353,  354. 


ARGUMENTATION.  303 

selves  that  variegated  mosaic  of  the  world's  surface  which  a 
bird  sees  in  its  migration,  that  difference  between  the  district 
of  the  gentian  and  of  the  olive  which  the  stork  and  the  swallow 
see  far  off,  as  they  lean  upon  the  sirocco  wind.  Let  us,  for  a 
moment,  try  to  raise  ourselves  even  above  the  level  of  their 
flight,  and  imagine  the  Mediterranean  lying  beneath  us  like  an 
irregular  lake,  and  all  its  ancient  promontories  sleeping  in  the 
sun :  here  and  there  an  angry  spot  of  thunder,  a  grey  stain  of 
storm,  moving  upon  the  burning  field  ;  and  here  and  there  a 
fixed  wreath  of  white  volcano  smoke,  surrounded  by  its  circle 
of  ashes  ;  but  for  the  most  part  a  great  peacefulness  of  light, 
Syria  and  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain,  laid  like  pieces  of  a  golden 
pavement  into  the  sea-blue,  chased,  as  we  stoop  nearer  to 
them,  with  bossy  beaten  work  of  mountain  chains,  and  glowing 
softly  with  terraced  gardens,  and  flowers  heavy  with  frankin- 
cense, mixed  among  masses  of  laurel,  and  orange  and  plumy 
palm,  that  abate  with  their  grey-green  shadows  the  burning  of 
the  marble  rocks,  and  of  the  ledges  of  porphyry  sloping  under 
lucent  sand.  Then  let  us  pass  farther  towards  the  north,  until 
we  see  the  orient  colors  change  gradually  into  a  vast  belt  of 
rainy ~-,green,  where  the  pastures  of  Switzerland,  and  poplar 
valleys  of  France,  and  dark  forests  of  the  Danube  and  Carpa- 
thians stretch  from  the  mouths  of  the  Loire  to  those  of  the 
Volga,  seen  through  clefts  in  grey  swirls  of  rain-cloud  and 
flaky  veils  of  the  mist  of  the  brooks,  spreading  low  along  the 
pasture  lands  :  and  then,  farther  north  still,  to  see  the  earth 
heave  into  mighty  masses  of  leaden  rock  and  heathy  moor, 
bordering  with  a  broad  waste  of  gloomy  purple  that  belt  of 
field  and  wood,  and  splintering  into  irregular  and  grisly  islands 
amidst  the  northern  seas,  beaten  by  storm  and  chilled  by  ice- 
drift,  and  tormented  by  furious  pulses  of  contending  tide,  until 
the  roots  of  the  last  forests  fail  from  among  the  hill  ravines, 
and  the  hunger  of  the  north  wind  bites  their  peaks  into 
barrenness;  and,  at  last,  the  wall  of  ice,  durable  like  iron, 
sets,   deathlike,   its  white   teeth   against  us  out  of  the   polar 


304  ARGUMENTATION. 

twilight.  And,  having  once  traversed  in  thought  its  gradation 
of  the  zoned  iris  of  the  earth  in  all  its  material  vastness,  let  us 
go  down  nearer  to  it,  and  watch  the  parallel  change  in  the  belt 
of  animal  life  :  the  multitudes  of  swift  and  brilliant  creatures 
that  glance  in  the  air  and  sea,  or  tread  the  sands  of  the 
southern  zone ;  striped  zebras  and  spotted  leopards,  glistening 
serpents,  and  birds  arrayed  in  purple  and  scarlet.  Let  us 
contrast  their  delicacy  and  brilliancy  of  color,  and  swiftness  of 
motion,  with  the  frost-cramped  strength,  and  shaggy  covering, 
and  dusky  plumage  of  the  northern  tribes;  contrast  the 
Arabian  horse  with  the  Shetland,  the  tiger  and  leopard  with 
the  wolf  and  bear,  the  antelope  with  the  elk,  the  bird  of 
paradise  with  the  osprey." ! 

Beecher's  Liverpool  speech  and  the  First  Letter  of 
Junius  illustrate  throughout  the  great  value  of  the  con- 
crete. Beecher  followed  almost  every  statement  of  a 
general  idea  with  a  concrete  illustration  of  it.  The  letter 
of  Junius  is  simply  a  series  of  concrete  exemplifications 
of  the  truth  of  the  general  thesis  with  wN^&$ra&e&an • 
Aim,  then,  at  concreteness  of  statement.  ^\wto5§m^ 

9.  Avoid  Digression.  — -  Some  forensics  by^wB(88^u- 
dents  treat  their  subjects  in  a  way  that  remind?NB\eVder 
of  a  dog  out  for  a  walk  with  his  master.  The  dog  cer- 
tainly covers  the  country  before  he  returns  home,  but  he 
is  here,  there,  and  everywhere,  now  at  his  master's  heels, 
now  over  the  stone  wall,  now  barking  up  a  tree.  He  is 
drawn  off  from  the  straight  road  by  any  new  thing  that 
catches  his  eye.  He  makes  no  selection  in  his  interests. 
All  that  has  been  said  of  the  value  of  finding  by  analysis 
just  what  matter  is  essential  to  the  case  and  what  is 
extraneous,  all  the  rules  for  gaining  unity  in  a  brief,  tend 

1  Stones  of  Venice,  Ruskin,  vol.  II,  pp.  156-158.     John  W.  Lovell  Co. 


ARGUMENTATION.  305 

to  prevent  in  writers  of  forensics  a  similar  tendency  to 
leave  the  straight  road,  to  follow  whatever  is  attractive 
and  may  not  be  intimately  connected  with  the.  sub- 
ject in  hand.  If  all  these  rules  are  carefully  observed, 
the  forensic  cannot  be  loose  in  its  main  structure.  The 
development  of  paragraphs  should,  however,  be  watched 
lest  this  tendency  to  digress,  to  develop  the  work  loosely, 
appear  in  them. 

10.  Effective  Methods  of  Refutation:  The  Reductio 
ad  Absurdum.  —  There  are  three  often-used  methods  of 
refutation  which  a  student  of  Argumentation  will  find  it 
convenient  to  understand  :  the  Reductio  ad  Absurdum, 
the  Dilemma,  and  the  Method  of  Residues.  In  the  first,  the 
Reductio  ad  Absurdum,  a  writer,  assuming  for  the  mo- 
ment the  truth  of  his  opponent's  statement,  shows  that  it 
must  lead  to  absurdity,  that  it  proves  too  much.  Beecher 
used  the_Reductio  ad  Absurdum  to  answer  his  audience 
when  they  seemed  to  favor  the  South  on  the  ground  that 
they  must  always  sympathize  with  the  "  weaker  people, 
the  minority  " ;  and  showed  the  absurdity  of  an  attempt 
to  carry  out  this  theory  in  all  cases. 

"  You  carmot  help  going  with  the  minority,  who  are  strug- 
gling for  their  rights  against  the  majority.  Nothing  could  be 
more  generous,  when  a  weak  party  stands  for  its  own  legiti- 
mate rights  against  imperious  pride  and  power,  than  to  sympa- 
thize with  the  weak.  But  who  ever  sympathized  with  a  weak 
thief,  because  three  constables  had  got  hold  of  him  ?  [Hear, 
hear !]  And  yet  the  one  thief  in  three  policemen's  hands  is 
the  weaker  party.  I  suppose  you  would  sympathize  with  him. 
"Hear,  hear !  laughter,  and  applause.]  Why,  when  that  infa- 
mous king  of  Naples,  Bomba,  was  driven  into  Gaeta  by  Gari- 
baldi with    his  immortal   band  of  patriots,  and   Cavour  sent 


306  ARGUMENTATION. 

against  him  the  army  of  Northern  Italy,  who  was  the  weakei 
party  then  ?  The  tyrant  and  his  minions  ;  and  the  majorit) 
was  with  the  noble  Italian  patriots,  struggling  for  liberty.  ] 
never  heard  that  Old  England  sent  deputations  to  King  Bomba 
and  yet  his  troops  resisted  bravely  there.  [Laughter  and  inter 
ruption.]  To-day  the  majority  of  the  people  of  Rome  is  witr 
Italy.  Nothing  but  French  bayonets  keeps  her  from  goin£ 
back  to  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  to  which  she  belongs.  Do  yoi 
sympathize  with  the  minority  in  Rome  or  the  majority  ir 
Italy  ? " » 

In  the  following,  from  the  speech  on  Conciliation  with 
the  American  Colonies,  Burke  showed  the  absurdity  of  the 
statement,  "  We  should  impoverish  our  colonies  in  ordei 
to  make  them  obedient  ":  — 

"  To  impoverish  the  colonies  in  general,  and  in  particula; 
to  arrest  the  noble  course  of  their  marine  enterprises,  woulc 
be  a  more  easy  task.  I  freely  confess  it.  We  have  shown  i 
disposition  to  a  system  of  this  kind.  .  .  .  But  when  I  con- 
sider that  we  have  colonies  for  no  purpose  but  to  be  service 
able  to  us,  it  seems  to  my  poor  understanding  a  little  prepos 
terous  to  make  them  unserviceable  in  order  to  keep  then 
obedient."2 

Evidently  all  that  this  method  ever  accomplishes,  wit! 
the  exception  of  the  case  in  which  but  two  points  of  view 
are  possible,  —  that  refuted  and  that  held  by  the  refuter 
—  is  to  clear  the  ground  so  that  the  writer  can  develop 
proof  in  favor  of  his  own  theory. 

The  Dilemma. — The  second  method  is  the  Dilemma 
By  this  a  writer  reduces  his  opponent's  case  to  an  alterna 
tive;  shows  that  the  first  part  does  not  hold  true;  ther 


1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  p.  170. 

2  Political  Orations.     Camelot  Series,  p.  77. 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  307 

that  the  second  does  not;  and  concludes  that,  therefore, 
the  opponent's  case  falls.  Plainly,  the  value  of  such  a 
method  is  purely  destructive.  A  writer  does  not,  by  the 
use  of  the  Dilemma,  necessarily  prove  the  truth  of  his 
case.  He  can  only  build  up  his  argument  on  the  place 
once  occupied  by  his  opponent.  Huxley  used  this  method 
effectively  in  disproving  the  Miltonic  hypothesis  in  regard 
to  the  creation  of  the  world  —  that  it  was  created  in 
seven  days,  the  birds  on  one  day,  the  fishes  on  another, 
etc. :  — 

"The  Miltonic  hypothesis  contains  assertions  of  a  very  defi- 
nite character,  relating  to  the  succession  of  living  forms.  It  is 
stated  that  plants,  for  example,  made  their  appearance  upon 
the  third  day,  and  not  before.  And  you  will  understand  that 
what  the  poet  means  by  plants  are  such  plants  as  now  live,  the 
ancestors,  in  the  ordinary  way  of  propagation  like  by  like,  of 
the  trees  and  shrubs  which  flourish  in  the  present  world.  It 
must  needs  be  so  ;  for,  if  they  were  different,  either  the  exist- 
ing plants  have  been  the  result  of  a  separate  origination  since 
that  described  by  Milton  [first  horn  of  dilemma],  of  which  we 
have  no  record,  nor  any  ground  for  supposition  that  such  an 
occurrence  has  taken  place ;  or  else  they  have  arisen  by  a 
process  of  evolution  from  the  original  stocks  [second  horn  of 
the  dilemma,  the  strength  of  which  is  not  admitted  by  holders 
of  the  Miltonic  hypothesis].  .  .  .  And,  again,  if  it  be  true 
that  all  varieties  of  fishes  and  the  great  whales,  and  the  like, 
made  their  appearance  on  the  fifth  day,  we  ought  to  find  the 
remains  of  these  animals  in  the  older  rocks  —  in  those  which 
were  deposited  before  the  carboniferous  epoch.  Fishes  we  do 
find,  in  considerable  number  and  variety ;  but  the  great  whales 
are  absent,  and  the  fishes  are  not  such  as  now  live.  Not  one 
solitary  species  of  fish  now  in  existence  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Devonian  or   Silurian  formations.     Hence  we  are  introduced 


308  ARGUMENTATION. 

afresh  to  the  dilemma  which  I  have  already  placed  before  you 
either  the  animals  which  came  into  existence  on  the  fifth  day 
were  not  such  as  those  which  are  found  at  present,  are  not 
the  direct  and  immediate  ancestors  of  those  which  now  exist 
[this  is  contrary  to  the  belief  of  those  holding  the  theory] ;  in 
which  case  either  fresh  creations,  of  which  nothing  is  said,  or 
a  process  of  evolution  must  have  occurred ;  or  else  the  whole 
story  must  be  given  up,  as  not  only  devoid  of  any  circumstan- 
tial evidence,  but  contrary  to  such  evidence  as  exists."1 

The  Method  of  Residues.  —  The  third  method  of  refut- 
ing a  case  is  the  Method  of  Residues.  A  writer  shows 
by  careful  analysis  what  are  all  the  possible  theories  that 
may  be  held  in  regard  to  some  disputed  matter,  and  then, 
by  excluding  one  after  the  other  for  convincing  reasons 
given,  leaves  his  own  theory  standing  with  at  least  a 
strong  presumption  2  in  its  favor.  It  is  possible,  of  course, 
until  the  one  remaining  theory  has  been  shown  to  be 
entirely  satisfactory,  that  some  other  hypothesis  not  yet 
evolved  may  be  the  correct  one.  Therefore  proof  is  usu- 
ally given  for  the  reason  left  standing  by  the  fall  of  the 
other  theories.  Professor  Huxley  used  this  Method  of 
Residues  in  the  first  of  his  Three  Lectures  on  Evolution. 
Stating  that,  so  far  as  he  knew,  but  three  hypotheses 
have  ever  been  held  in  regard  to  the  creation  of  the 
world,  he  carefully  explained  each.  He  showed  why  the 
first  cannot  be  maintained;  next,  why  the  second  falls; 

1  Specimens  of  Argttmentation  (Modern),  pp.  79,  82,  83. 

2  Throughout  this  book  a  student  should  distinguish  carefully  between 
a  presumption  and  an  assumption.  When  a  man  is  said  to  have  a  pre- 
sumption in  his  favor,  this  means  that  his  proposition  "  is  assumed  to  be 
true  in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary."  (Hill's  Rhetoric,  p.  332.) 
A  man  makes  an  assumption  whenever  he  advances  without  support  a 
statement,  the  truth  of  which  is  not  generally  admitted. 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  309 

and  thus  left  a  clear  way  for  his  proof  of  the  truth  of  the 
theory  of  Evolution  and  a  strong  presumption  in  its  favor.1 
Still  another  effective  method  of  refutation  —  a  favorite 
of  Macaulay's —  is  to  take  up  an  opponent's  argument  as 
if  to  refute  it,  and  then  show  that  it  makes  not  for,  but 
against  the  opponent.  This  is  an  argumentative  turning 
of  the  enemy's  flank.  Macaulay's  "assault  on  primogeni- 
ture illustrates  his  manner  of  retorting  that  the  facts  prove 
exactly  the  opposite  of  what  is  asserted  :  — 

1  It  is  evident  that  this  theory,  though  intended  to  strengthen 
the  foundations  of  Government,  altogether  unsettles  them. 
Did  the  divine  and  immutable  law  of  primogeniture  admit 
females  or  exclude  them  ?  On  either  supposition,  half  the 
sovereigns  of  Europe  must  be  usurpers,  reigning  in  defiance  of 
the  command  of  heaven,  and  might  be  justly  deposed  by  the 
rightful  heirs.'"2 


Refutation  is  Destructive,  not  Constructive. 

These  examples  of  refutation  must  make  clear  a  very 
important  fact  that  every  student  should  remember. 
Except  when  it  has  been  conclusively  shown  that  but  a  cer- 
tain number  of  theories  or  statements  are  possible  in  regard 
to  the  matter  under  discussion,  and  all  the  possible  theories 
but  one  have  been  refuted,  refutation  is  purely  destructive, 
and  does  not  prove  anything  to  be  true  or  to  exist.  In  all 
cases  but  that  excepted,  it  merely  clears  the  ground  for  the 
proof  the  refuter  wishes  to  give  of  tlie  truth  of  his  own 
ideas.     In   the  exception   mentioned,    by  showing  that  all 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  6o  et  seq. 

2  Manual  of  English  Literature,  p.  150,  Minto. 


310  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

the  possible  theories  but  one  do  not  hold,  it  at  least  estab- 
lishes a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  that  one.  So  diffi- 
cult, however,  is  it  to  be  sure  that  all  possible  explanations 
of  a  phenomenon,  all  the  theories  in  regard  to  it,  have 
been  named,  that  careful  workers  in  Argumentation  — 
for  example,  Professor  Huxley,  see  p.  308  —  are  usually 
satisfied  with  getting,  even  from  the  exception  noted,  a  strong 
presumption  in  their  favor,  and  go  on  to  prove  why  their 
theory,  their  explanation,  is  to  be  accepted. 

1 1 .  Study  Emphasis.  —  A  very  important  matter  far 
too  often  neglected  by  students  of  Argumentation  is  study 
of  emphasis,  that  is,  giving  prominence  to  that  in  an 
argument  which  it  is  important  a  reader  should  grasp  and 
retain  in  mind  The  whole  analytical  process  of  separat- 
ing what  is  essential  in  a  treatment  of  the  case  in  hand 
from  what  is  extraneous  is  a  study  of  a  kind  of  emphasis. 
So,  too,  when  a  student  considers,  in  preparing  his  brief, 
whether  an  idea  is  to  be  made  a  head  or  a  sub-head,  and  how 
he  must  arrange  his  ideas  to  get  climax,  he  again  studies 
emphasis,  for  what  is  given  a  main  position,  what  is  put  at 
the  end  of  a  climax,  is  emphasized.  Indeed,  the  emphasis 
that  comes  from  the  position  given  an  idea  is  largely  settled 
in  the  brief.  Rhetoric,  however,  may  still  do  much  to  give 
emphasis,  and  may  do  its  work  both  by  the  position  and 
by  the  phrasing  it  gives  an  idea.  Any  college  student 
knows  that  whether  an  idea  is  placed  at  the  beginning,  in 
the  middle,  or  at  the  end  of  a  sentence  or  paragraph  —  its 
position  in  relation  to  other  words  —  may  affect  emphasis. 
He  knows,  too,  that  the  very  phrasing  of  an  idea,  that 
reiteration  of  it,  can  make  it  prominent,  difficult  to  forget. 
Any  and  all  devices  that  he  knows  for  giving  emphasis  he 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  3 1 1 

should  bear  constantly  in  mind  in  his  work  on  Argumen- 
tation, for  they  are  well-nigh  indispensable  aids  to  force 
in  discussion. 

Constantly,  beginners  in  Argumentation  who  give  strong 
evidence  in  support  of  their  ideas  produce  but  a  weak 
effect  because  they  do  not  drive  home  their  arguments. 
In  developing  a  long  division  of  their  work  they  do  not 
push  into  prominence  that  idea  which  they  wish  a  reader 
to  grant  and  remember.  When  they  have  given  their 
proof  of  the  truth  of  an  idea  they  pass  at  once  to  proof 
about  another  idea,  without  any  effort  to  impress  un- 
mistakably on  the  reader's  mind  exactly  what  they 
think  the  just  completed  division  has  accomplished.  A 
reader  may,  therefore,  feel  that  he  ought  to  be  convinced, 
but  not  be  sure  about  what ;  or  he  may  be  sure  that  some- 
thing which  is  not  just  what  the  writer  intended  to  prove 
true  has  been  demonstrated  as  a  fact.  The  value  of 
emphasis  was  recognized  very  early  in  the  history  of 
oratory :  — 

"A  striking  trait  of  Isaeus  [420-350  B.C.]  in  the  province 
of  argument  is  iteration  ;  and  the  preference  of  emphasis  to  form 
which  this  implies  is  worth  notice  as  suggesting  how  the  practi- 
cal view  of  oratory  was  beginning  to  prevail  over  the  artistic. 
Sometimes  the  repetition  is  verbal  —  an  indignant  question  or 
phrase  occurs  again  and  again,  where  Isocrates  would  have  ab- 
stained from  using  it  twice.  More  often  it  is  an  argument  or 
a  statement  which  the  speaker  aims  at  impressing  on  the 
hearers  by  urging  it  in  a  series  of  different  forms  and  con- 
nections. Or  even  a  document,  cited  at  the  outset,  is  read  a 
second  time,  as  if  to  make  the  jury  realize  more  vividly  that  a 
circle  of  proof  has  been  completed."  1 

1  Attic  Orators,  vol.  II,  p.  297.     Jebb. 


312  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

A  valuable  means  of  impressing  on  a  reader  the  truths  a 
writer  wishes  him  to  accept  as  proved  is  the  use  of  sum- 
maries. At  the  end  of  a  division  which  has  been  long, 
involved,  technical,  or  for  any  reason  not  easy  to  grasp,  a 
writer  sums  up  the  significance  of  what  he  has  been  say- 
ing. He  gives  an  outline  in  a  succinct  form  likely  to  stay 
in  a  reader's  mind,  and  thus  emphasizes  what  he  wishes 
to  have  remembered.  Burke  was  a  master  of  the  sum- 
mary. The  following  examples  of  his  use  of  it  in  his 
speech  on  Conciliation  ivitJi  the  American  Colonies  show 
how  effective  an  aid  to  clearness  and  force  the  summary 
can  be. 

"  Then,  sir,  from  these  six  capital  sources :  of  descent ;  of 
form  of  government ;  of  religion  in  the  northern  provinces ;  of 
manners  in  the  southern ;  of  education ;  of  the  remoteness  of 
situation  from  the  first  mover  of  government,  —  from  all  these 
causes  a  fierce  spirit  of  liberty  has  grown  up.  It  has  grown 
with  the  growth  of  the  people  in  your  colonies,  and  increased 
with  the  increase  of  their  wealth  ;  a  spirit  that,  unhappily,  meet- 
ing with  an  exercise  of  power  in  England,  which,  however 
lawful,  is  not  reconcilable  to  any  ideas  of  liberty,  much  less 
with  theirs,  has  kindled  this  flame  that  is  ready  to  con- 
sume us."  ' 

"  If,  then,  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  of  American 
liberty  be,  for  the  greater  part,  or  rather  entirely,  impractica- 
ble ;  if  the  ideas  of  criminal  process  be  inapplicable,  or  if 
applicable,  are  in  the  highest  degree  inexpedient ;  what  way  yet 
remains  ?  No  way  is  open,  but  the  third  and  last  —  to  comply 
with  the  American  spirit  as  necessary;  or,  if  you  please,  to 
submit  to  it  as  a  necessary  evil."  2 

"  Here  is  my  third  example.  It  was  attended  with  the  suc- 
cess of  the  two  former.     Chester,  civilized  as  well  as  Wales, 

1  Political  Orations.     Camelot  Series,  p.  72.  '2  Idem,  p.  82. 


ARGUMENTATION.  313 

has  demonstrated  that  freedom,  and  not  servitude,  is  the  cure 
of  anarchy ;  as  religion,  and  not  atheism,  is  the  true  remedy 
for  superstition."  1 

"  Sir,  here  is  the  repeated  acknowledgment  of  parliament  that 
the  colonies  not  only  gave,  but  gave  to  satiety.  This  nation 
has  formally  acknowledged  two  things ;  first,  that  the  colonies 
had  gone  beyond  their  abilities,  parliament  having  thought  it 
necessary  to  reimburse  them ;  secondly,  that  they  had  acted 
legally  and  laudably  in  their  grants  of  money,  and  their  main- 
tenance of  troops,  since  the  compensation  is  expressly  given  as 
reward  and  encouragement.  Reward  is  not  bestowed  for  acts 
that  are  unlawful ;  and  encouragement  is  not  held  out  to  things 
that  deserve  reprehension.  My  resolution,  therefore,  does 
nothing  more  than  collect  into  one  proposition  what  is  scattered 
through  your  journals.  I  give  you  nothing  but  your  own  ;  and 
you  cannot  refuse  in  the  gross  what  you  have  so  often  acknowl- 
edged in  detail.  The  admission  of  this,  which  will  be  so 
honorable  to  them  and  to  you,  will,  indeed,  be  mortal  to  all  the 
miserable  stories  by  which  the  passions  of  the  misguided  people 
have  been  engaged  in  an  unhappy  system."  2 

Here  is  the  summary  with  which  Justice  Harlan  con- 
cluded the  second  part  of  his  argument  before  the  Behring 
Sea  Tribunal,  in  Paris,  in  1893  :  — 

"  If  I  am  correct  in  the  views  above  expressed,  the  answers 
to  the  first  four  points  of  Article  VI.  should  be,  substantially,  as 
follows  : 

"  To  the  first.  —  Prior  to  and  up  to  the  time  of  the  cession  of 
Alaska  to  the  United  States,  Russia  did  not  assert  nor  exercise 
any  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  Behring  Sea,  or  any  exclusive 
rights  in  the  fur  seal  fisheries  in  that  sea,  outside  of  ordinary 
territorial  waters,  except  that  in  the  Ukase  of  182 1  she  did 
assert  the  right  to  prevent  foreign  vessels  from  approaching 

1  Political  Orations.     Camelot  Series,  p.  92.  2  Idem,  p.  99. 


314  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

nearer  than  ioo  Italian  miles  the  coasts  and  islands  named  in 
that  Ukase.  But,  pending  the  negotiations  to  which  that 
Ukase  gave  rise,  Russia  voluntarily  suspended  its  execution,  so 
far  as  to  direct  its  officers  to  restrict  their  surveillance  of  foreign 
vessels  to  the  distance  of  cannon  shot  from  the  shores  men- 
tioned, and  by  the  treaty  of  1824  with  the  United  States,  as 
well  as  by  that  of  1825  with  Great  Britain,  the  above  Ukase 
was  withdrawn,  and  the  claim  of  authority,  or  the  power  to  pro- 
hibit foreign  vessels  from  approaching  the  coasts  nearer  than 
100  Italian  miles  was  abandoned,  by  the  agreement  embodied 
in  those  treaties  to  the  effect  that  the  respective  citizens  and 
subjects  of  the  high  contracting  parties  should  not  be  troubled 
or  molested,  in  any  part  of  the  Great  Ocean  commonly  called 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  either  in  navigating  the  same  or  in  fishing 
therein,  or  in  landing  at  such  parts  of  the  coast  as  shall  not  have 
been  already  occupied,  in  order  to  trade  with  the  natives,  under 
the  restrictions  and  conditions  specified  in  other  articles  of 
those  treaties. 

"  To  the  second. —  Great  Britain  never  recognized  nor  con- 
ceded any  claim  by  Russia  of  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  Behring 
Sea,  nor  of  exclusive  rights  as  to  the  seal  fisheries  therein,  out- 
side of  ordinary  territorial  waters ;  although  she  did  recognize 
and  concede  Russia's  exclusive  jurisdiction  within  her  own 
territory,  and  such  jurisdiction  inside  of  territorial  waters  as 
was  consistent  with  the  law  of  nations. 

"  To  the  third.  —  The  body  of  water  now  known  as  Behring 
Sea  was  included  in  the  phrase  '  Pacific  Ocean '  as  used  in  the 
treaty  of  1825  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  and,  after 
that  treaty,  Russia  neither  held  nor  exercised  any  rights 
in  the  waters  of  Behring  Sea  —  outside  of  ordinary  territorial 
waters  —  that  did  not  belong  in  the  same  waters  to  other 
countries. 

"  To  the  fourth.  —  All  the  rights  of  Russia  as  to  jurisdiction, 
and  as  to  the  seal  fisheries  in  Behring  Sea,  east  of  the  water 
boundary  in  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Russia 


AKGUMENTA  TION.  315 

of  March  30,  1867,  passed,  under  that  treaty,  unimpaired  to 
the  United  States."  1 

12.  Avoid  Qualifications. — What  often  weakens  the 
effect  of  an  argument  in  a  forensic  is  qualification.  The 
writer  develops  his  argument  and  then,  as  he  closes  the 
paragraph  or  division,  says,  "This,  then,  seems  to  me 
true  for  these  reasons,  but  even  if  I  have  not  proved 
this,  surely  I  have  proved  that  ..."  This  at  once 
arouses  the  reader's  suspicions.  He  fears  that  the  writer 
has  worked  either  carelessly  or  ignorantly,  in  either  case 
not  correctly  valuing  his  evidence  before  using  it,  and  so 
has  recognized  at  the  last  moment  its  inadequacy  for  the 
purpose  for  which  he  has  used  it.  Faith  in  the  writer  is 
weakened,  and  the  reader's  suspicions  may  extend  to 
what  he  has  already  accepted  as  true.  Qualification  is 
really  an  admission  of  fault.  When  a  man  states  or 
implies  at  the  end  of  a  division  that  he  has  certainly 
proved  true  what  is  really  but  a  qualified  form  of  his 
original  proposition,  he  admits  his  failure  to  prove  that 
proposition  itself.  In  the  following  extract  from  Pitt's 
speech  on  the  Slave  Trade  there  is  a  kind  of  qualification 
at  the  end  :  — 

"  On  the  part  of  the  West  Indians  it  is  urged,  '  The  planters 
are  in  debt,  they  are  already  distressed;  if  you  stop  the  slave 
trade,  they  will  be  ruined.'  Mr.  Long,  the  celebrated  historian 
of  Jamaica,  recommends  the  stopping  of  importations  as  a 
receipt  for  enabling  the  plantations  which  are  embarassed  to 
get  out  of  debt.  Speaking  of  the  usurious  terms  on  which 
money  is  often  borrowed  for  the  purchase  of  fresh  slaves,  he 
advises  'the  laying  of  a  duty  equal  to  a  prohibition  on  all 
negroes  imported  for  the  space  of  four  or  five  years,  except  for 

1  Behring  Sea  Arbitration,  pp.  no,  III.     Harlan. 


316  ARGUMENTATION. 

reexportation.  Such  a  law,'  he  proceeds  to  say,  'would  be 
attended  with  the  following  good  consequences.  It  would  put 
an  immediate  stop  to  these  extortions ;  it  would  enable  the 
planter  to  retrieve  his  affairs  by  preventing  him  from  running 
in  debt,  either  by  renting  or  purchasing  negroes;  it  would 
render  such  recruits  less  necessary,  by  the  redoubled  care  he 
would  be  obliged  to  take  of  his  present  stock,  the  preservation 
of  their  lives  and  health ;  and  lastly,  it  would  raise  the  value 
of  negroes  in  the  island.  A  North  American  province,  by  this 
prohibition  alone  for  a  few  years,  from  being  deeply  plunged 
in  debt,  has  become  independent,  rich,  and  flourishing.'  On 
this  authority  of  Mr.  Long  I  rest  the  question  whether  the 
prohibition  of  further  importations  is  that  rash,  impolitic,  and 
completely  ruinous  measure  which  it  is  so  confidently  declared 
to  be  with  respect  to  our  West  Indian  plantations.  I  do  not, 
however,  mean,  in  thus  treating  this  branch  of  the  subject, 
absolutely  to  exclude  the  question  of  indemnification,  on  the 
supposition  of  possible  disadvantages  affecting  the  West  Indies 
through  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade.  But  when  gentlemen 
set  up  a  claim  of  compensation  merely  on  these  general  allega- 
tions, which  are  all  that  I  have  yet  heard  from  them,  I  can 
only  answer,  let  them  produce  their  case  in  a  distinct  and 
specific  form ;  and  if  upon  any  practicable  or  reasonable 
grounds  it  shall  claim  consideration,  it  will  then  be  time 
enough  for  Parliament  to  decide  upon  it."  l 

Pitt  seems,  up  to  "  I  do  not,  however,"  to  be  proving 
that  the  abolition  of  slavery  could  not  hurt  the  planters 
of  the  West  Indies.  In  the  lines  after  "  I  do  not,  how- 
ever," he  implies  that  he  can  conceive  that  it  might  hurt 
them  sufficiently  for  them  to  be  justified  in  asking  for 
indemnity.  This  makes  a  reader  feel  that  for  some 
reason  Pitt  did  not  think  that  what  seems  his  conclusive 

1  Political  Orations.     Camelot  Series,  pp.  147,  148. 


AR  G  U ME  NT  A  T/ON  3 1 7 

proof  was  such,  and  weakens  the  force  of  the  first  part  of 
the  paragraph.  A  little  change  in  the  phrasing  and 
arrangement  of  the  paragraph  would  obviate  this  diffi- 
culty. The  correct  order  of  the  train  of  thought  under- 
lying the  paragraph  is  this.  The  West  Indians  say  the 
abolition  of  slavery  will  ruin  them.  (i)  It  may  cause 
them  some  loss  at  the  outset,  but  (2)  it  cannot  ruin  them 
and  (3)  may  really  help  them.  (4)  An  indemnity  would 
meet  satisfactorily  the  immediate  loss.  By  slightly  con- 
fusing this  order  Pitt  produces  the  effect  of  qualification. 
Were  the  ideas  treated  strictly  in  this  order  and  form  the 
qualification  would  disappear.  When  a  writer  is  tempted 
to  qualify,  let  him  find  (I)  just  what  it  is  lie  is  trying  to 
prove  in  the  divisio7i,  a7id  then  (2)  whether  his  evidence  is 
eq?ial  to  his  needs.  If  his  evidence  is  insufficient,  let  him 
find  new  evidence  sufficiently  strong,  or  change  his  proposi- 
tion to  something  his  original  evidence  will  prove  trice. 
Then  qualification  will  disappear. 

13.  Be  Master  of  the  Subject.  —  Any  reader  of  the 
forensic  on  Lord  Beaconsfield  and  the  Eastern  Ques- 
tion (p.  182)  must  see  what  a  bad  effect  is  produced 
when  a  writer  is  evidently  not  master  of  his  subject. 
The  work  is  not  only  unconvincing  but  also  irritating. 
For  a  writer  not  to  be  master  of  his  subject  means  loose, 
ununified  work,  full  of  contradictions,  qualifications,  and 
fallacies.  To  be  master  of  it  means  good  structure,  a 
clear,  forcible  development  of  the  material,  free  from 
fallacies,  and  an  air  of  sureness  that  will  make  the 
audience  trust  the  speaker  or  writer  from  the  outset,  that 
will  have  a  persuasive  force  of  its  own.  Constant  quota- 
tion seriously  interferes  with  any  attempt  to  produce  the 
effect  of  mastery  of  the  subject.      "They  show  an  undi- 


318  ARGUMENTATION. 

gested  knowledge.  They  lose  the  power  of  personality. 
They  daub  the  well  with  untempered  mortar.  Here  is 
the  need  of  broad  and  genuine  culture.  Learn  to  study 
for  the  sake  of  truth,  learn  to  think  for  the  profit  and  joy 
of  thinking.  Then  your  sermon  shall  be  like  the  leaping 
of  a  fountain  and  not  the  pumping  of  a  pump."  1  Study 
to  be  able  to  meet  your  opponent  boldly,  doing  full  justice 
to  the  case  he  can  make  out  for  himself,  and  yet  overcom- 
ing him.  Develop  your  whole  case  in  such  a  way  that  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  a  reader  or  hearer  will  feel,  "  This 
man  is  completely  master  of  his  subject!' 

14.  Fit  the  Treatment  of  the  Subject  to  the  Degree  of 
Knowledge  of  it  Possessed  by  the  A  udienceS^—  Though  a 
writer  should  show  that  he  is  master  of  his\ubject,  he 
should  not  let  this  mastery  lead  him  into  the\>bscurity 
that  often  makes  the  work  of  a  specialist  difficult  for 
the  general  public  to  understand.  The  specialist  fojrgets 
that  his  audience  can  have  but  a  small  part  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  his  subject  which  he  possesses.  He  shares  the 
feeling  of  Lowell  :  "lam  apt  also  to  fancy  that  what  has 
long  been  familiar  to  my  own  mind  must  be  equally  sNb  to 
the  minds  of  others,  and  this  uncomfortable  suspicion 
makes  me  shy  of  insisting  on  what  may  be  already  only 
too  little  in  need  of  it."  2  \ 

As  a  result  the  specialist  fails  to  explain  what  for  his 
audience  needs  explanation,  fails  to  show  why  certain 
statements  which  he  makes  must  be  true.  A  student 
of  Argumentation  should  not  forget  that  any  man  who 
has  taken  time  to  write  a  careful  argument  on  some 
subject  is  a  specialist  on  that  subject  as  compared  with 

1  Lectures  on  Preaching,  Phillips  Brooks. 

2  Lowell,  Literary  Essays,  vol.  I,  p.  vi.      Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.,  1890. 


ARGUMENTATION.  319 

most  of  his  fellow-men.  If  not  on  his  guard  he  will 
produce  work  of  which  he  can  say,  with  Sir  Kenelm 
Digby:  — 

"  For  besides  what  faylings  may  be  in  the  matter,  I  cannot 
doubt  but  that  even  in  the  expressions  of  it,  there  must  often 
be  great  obscurity  and  shortnesse;  which,  I,  who  have  my 
thoughts  filled  with  the  things  themselves,  am  not  aware  of. 
So  that,  what  peradventure  may  seem  very  full  to  me,  because 
every  imperfect  touch  bringeth  into  my  mind  the  entire  notion 
and  the  whole  chain  of  circumstances  belonging  to  that  thing 
I  have  so  often  beaten  upon,  may  appear  very  crude  and 
maymed  to  a  stranger,  that  cannot  guesse  what  I  would  be  at, 
otherwise  than  as  my  direct  words  do  lead  him."1 

In  Argumentation  a  student  should  decide  early  what 
degree  of  knowledge  of  his  subject  he  may  probably 
expect  from  the  audience  to  be  addressed,  and  then 
must  treat  the  subject  so  that  it  shall  be  perfectly  clear 
and  convincing,  not  to  him,  the  specialist,  but  to  the 
audience  itself. 

Persuasion  in  the  Argument  Itself. 

The  second  work  of  the  argument  itself,  to  persuade, 
college  students  usually  neglect.  The  skillful  writer,  on 
the  other  hand,  never  forgets  it,  losing  no  opportunity  to 
give  to  the  particular  idea  he  is  developing,  the  reference 
he  makes,  the  illustration  he  uses,  to  any  and  every  part 
of  his  argument,  a  bearing  personal  to  his  audience,  so 
that  their  individual  interests,  their  emotions,  as  well  as 
their  reasoning  powers,  shall  be  stirred.  The  following 
examples  will  show  how  different  orators  have,  either  as 

1  Quoted  in  Lowell's  Literary  Essays,  vol.  I,  p.  vi.     1890. 


320  ARGUMENTATION. 

they  developed  their  arguments  or  as  soon  as  these  have 
been  stated,  found  something  in  the  ideas  to  stir  the 
emotions  of  their  audiences.  Here  is  the  way  Isocrates 
tried  to  arouse  his  audience  to  the  strongest  enthusiasm 
for  Sparta  :  — 

"  There  could  be  no  nobler  cause  in  which  to  die  than  the 
present,  v/hen  the  prestige,  when  the  very  existence  of  Sparta  is 
threatened.  Epidaurus,  Corinth,  Phlius  may  without  reproach 
prefer  safety  to  honour ;  Sparta  cannot.  The  reputation  of 
the  city  ought  to  be  as  dear  to  every  Spartan  as  his  own  :  he 
ought  not  to  suffer  it  to  desert  the  post  at  which  our  fathers 
placed  it.  How  could  we  ever  show  our  faces  at  Olympia  or 
at  any  Hellenic  gathering,  if  we  were  to  find  our  own  slaves 
outshining  us  there  by  means  of  wealth  taken  from  us  ?  Dipaea, 
where  a  single  line  of  Spartans  defeated  all  the  Argives; 
Thermopylae,  where  a  thousand  Spartans  held  their  ground 
against  the  seventy  myriads  of  Persia  —  ought  to  teach  us 
self-reliance  now.  Nothing  is  hopeless  in  war.  It  was  by 
war,  not  peace,  that  Athens  and  Thebes  grew.  And  in  this 
struggle  we  should  be  stimulated  by  remembering  that  all 
Hellas  is  watching  us."  ! 

In  the  following  from  the  First  Olynthiac  Demosthenes 
shows,  in  the  second  paragraph,  the  significance  for  his 
audience  of  his  words  in  the  first  paragraph :  — 

"  Does  any  one  of  you,  Athenians,  compute  or  consider  the 
means,  by  which  Philip,  originally  weak,  has  become  great  ? 
Having  first  taken  Amphipolis,  then  Pydna,  Potidaea  next, 
Methone  afterward,  he  invaded  Thessaly.  Having  ordered 
matters  at  Pherae,  Pagasae,  Magnesia,  everywhere  exactly  as 
he  pleased,  he  departed  for  Thrace ;  where,  after  displacing 
some  kings  and  establishing  others,  he  fell  sick ;   again  recov- 

1  Attic  Orators,  vol.  II,  pp.  200,  20  f,  R.  C.  J  ebb. 


ARGUMENTATION.  32K 

ering,  he  lapsed  not  into  indolence,  but  instantly  attacked  the 
Olynthians.  I  omit  his  expeditions  to  Illyria  and  Paeonia, 
that  against  Arymbas,  and  some  others. 

"  Why,  it  may  be  said,  do  you  mention  all  this  now  ?  That 
you,  Athenians,  may  feel  and  understand  both  the  folly  of 
continually  abandoning  one  thing  after  another,  and  the 
activity  which  forms  part  of  Philip's  habit  and  existence, 
which  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  rest  content  with  his 
achievements.  If  it  be  his  principle,  ever  to  do  more  than 
he  has  done,  and  yours,  to  apply  yourself  vigourously  to 
nothing,  see  what  the  end  promises  to  be.  Heavens  !  which 
of  you  is  so  simple  as  not  to  know,  that  the  war  yonder  will 
soon  be  here,  if  we  are  careless?  And  should  this  happen,  I 
fear,  O  Athenians,  that  as  men  who  thoughtlessly  borrow  on 
large  interest,  after  a  brief  accommodation,  lose  their  estate,  so 
will  it  be  with  us ;  found  to  have  paid  dear  for  our  idleness 
and  self-indulgence,  we  shall  be  reduced  to  many  hard  and  un- 
pleasant shifts,  and  struggle  for  the  salvation  of  our  country."  * 

Henry  Ward  Beecher  was  very  skillful  in  so  stating  his 
ideas,  his  conclusions,  as  to  make  them  not  only  convinc- 
ing but  persuasive.  Here  is  an  extract  from  the  speech 
at  Liverpool,  which  shows  this  skill  :  — 

"  Never  for  a  moment  have  they  [the  Southern  leaders] 
given  up  the  plan  of  spreading  the  American  institutions,  as 
they  call  them,  straight  through  toward  the  West,  until  the 
slave,  who  has  washed  his  feet  in  the  Atlantic,  shall  be  carried 
to  wash  them  in  the  Pacific.  There  !  I  have  got  that  statement 
out,  and  you  cannot  put  it  back.  Now,  let  us  consider  the 
prospect.  If  the  South  becomes  a  slave  empire,  what  relation 
will  it  have  to  you  as  a  customer  ?  It  would  be  an  empire  of 
twelve  millions  of  people.  Now,  of  these,  eight  millions  are 
white,  and  four  millions  black.     Consider  that  one- third  of  the 

1  Demosthenes,  p.  41,  Kennedy.     Harper's  Classical  Library, 


322  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

whole  are  the  miserably  poor,  unbuying  blacks.  You  do  not 
manufacture  much  for  them.  You  have  not  got  machinery 
coarse  enough.  Your  labor  is  too  skilled  by  far  to  manufac- 
ture bagging  and  linsey-woolsey.  (A  Southerner  :  '  We  are 
going  to  free  them,  every  one.')  Then  you  and  I  agree 
exactly.  One  other  third  consists  of  a  poor,  unskilled, 
degraded  white  population ;  and  the  remaining  one-third, 
which  is  a  large  allowance,  we  will  say,  intelligent  and  rich. 

"  Now  here  are  twelve  million  of  people,  and  only  one-third 
of  them  are  customers  that  can  afford  to  buy  the  kind  of  goods 
that  you  bring  to  market." i  \^^C^^ 

Study  of  these  illustrations  will  show  that  persuasive 
value  may  be  given  to  arguments  either  by  a  direct  appeal, 
suggested  by  them,  to  the  emotions,  or  by  pointing  out  or 
suggesting  that  significance  of  the  ideas  advanced  which, 
for  any  reason,  is  likely  to  stir  the  audience  to  action. 

\  */' 

f  >g+*^  The  Peroration  :    Its  Importance. 

*  The  third  division  of  a  forensic,  that  which  corresponds 
to  the  conclusion  of  a  brief,  is  the  Peroration.  The  work 
of  this  is  by  no  means  unimportant,  for  in  it  a  writer 
makes  his  final  impression  upon  his  reader,  and  this  must 
be  as  strong,  as  lasting,  as  he  can  produce.  Study  of 
briefs  should  have  shown  that  any  carefully  constructed 
bit  of  argumentation  is  a  steady  preparation  for  the  pero- 
ration. It  is  to  the  argument  what  the  climax  is  to  the 
story,  the  fifth  act  to  the  play.  It  is,  therefore,  extremely 
important  that  any  worker  in  Argumentation  should  under- 
stand what,  properly,  is  the  work  of  the  peroration,  and 
how  this  may  be  best  accomplished. 

In  any  literary  work,  to  know  when  to  stop  is  a  power 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  167,  16$. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  323 

essential  to  mastery  in  it.  Has  the  reader  never  heard  a 
story-teller  spoil  his  tale  because,  after  its  climax  was 
reached,  he  did  not  know  enough  to  stop,  or,  though  he 
evidently  felt  that  he  had  nothing  more  to  add,  did  not 
know  how  to  end  his  story  ?  Has  he  never  heard  an 
after-dinner  speech  which  began  well,  was  brilliant  for 
some  minutes,  and  then  became  unendurable  because  the 
speaker  did  not  know  when  and  how  to  stop  ?  Some 
speakers  and  writers  find  as  much  difficulty  in  getting 
out  of  a  story  or  speech  as  a  bashful  caller  does  in  get- 
ting out  of  a  room.  Like  him,  they  make  many  false 
starts,  and  waste  many  words.  If  a  student  has  con- 
structed his  brief  carefully  he  will  know  when  the  proper 
time  to  stop  has  come,  for,  evidently,  as  soon  as  he  has 
placed  all  his  own  arguments  and  his  refutation  before  his 
audience,  the  more  quickly  he  sums  up  his  case  and  closes, 
the  better.  Comparison  of  the  closing  words  of  Aeschines 
(p.  324)  and  Demosthenes  (p.  341)  "  On  the  Crown  "  gives 
a  striking  example  of  the  difference  between  a  peroration 
in  which  the  speaker  did  not  know  where  to  stop,  and  one 
where  he  did  know.  "  Aeschines,  not  being  a  true  artist, 
stands  in  awe  of  the  art.  He  does  not  venture  to  be  original 
and  to  stop  at  his  real  climax.  He  must  needs  conform 
with  the  artistic  usage  of  a  formal  harmony;  and  he  mars 
all.  Demosthenes,  the  master,  can  make  his  art  obey 
him.  With  true  instinct,  he  feels  this  to  be  the  rare 
case  which  the  rule  does  not  fit.  The  emotions  of  his 
hearers  have  been  stirred  beyond  the  point  of  obedience 
to  the  pulses  of  an  ordered  music.  His  intense  appeal 
to  the  memories  of  his  countrymen  ends  in  a  storm  of 
imprecation  and  of  prayer."  1 

1  Attic  Orators,  vol.  II,  p.  416,  Jebb. 


324  ARGUMENTATION. 

This  is  the  peroration  of  Aeschines  :  — 

" '  Remember,  then,  that  the  city  whose  fate  rests  with  you 
is  no  alien  city,  but  your  own.  Give  the  prizes  of  ambition  by 
merit,  not  by  chance;  reserve  your  rewards  for  those  whose 
manhood  is  truer  and  whose  characters  are  worthier ;  look  at 
each  other  and  judge,  not  .only  with  your  ears  but  with  your 
eyes,  who  of  your  number  are  likely  to  support  Demosthenes  ? 
His  youthful  companions  in  the  chase  or  gymnasium  ?  No, 
by  the  Olympian  Zeus  !  He  has  not  spent  his  life  in  hunting 
or  in  any  healthful  exercise,  but  in  cultivating  rhetoric  to  be 
used  against  men  of  property.  Think  of  his  boastfulness, 
when  he  claims,  by  his  embassy,  to  have  snatched  Byzantium 
out  of  the  hands  of  Philip,  to  have  thrown  the  Acharnanians 
into  revolt,  to  have  astonished  the  Thebans  with  his  harangue ! 
He  thinks  that  you  have  reached  a  point  of  fatuity  at  which 
you  can  be  made  to  believe  even  this — as  if  your  fellow-citizen 
were  the  Goddess  of  Persuasion,  instead  of  a  pettifogging 
mortal.  And  when,  at  the  end  of  his  speech,  he  calls  as  his 
advocates  those  who  shared  his  bribes,  imagine  that  you  see 
on  this  platform,  where  I  now  speak  before  you,  an  array  drawn 
up  to  confront  their  profligacy  —  the  benefactors  of  Athens ; 
Solon,  who  ordered  the  democracy  by  his  glorious  laws,  the 
philosopher,  the  good  legislator,  entreating  you,  with  that 
gravity  which  so  well  became  him,  never  to  set  the  rhetoric  of 
Demosthenes  above  your  oaths  and  above  the  law ;  Aristeides, 
—  who  assessed  the  tribute  of  the  Confederacy,  and  whose 
daughters,  after  his  death,  were  dowered  by  the  State,  —  indig- 
nant at  the  contumely  threatened  to  Justice,  and  asking,  Are 
you  not  ashamed 7  When  Arthmios  of  Zeleia  brought  Persian 
gold  to  Greece,  and  visited  Athens,  our  fathers  well-nigh  put  him 
to  death,  though  he  was  our  public  guest,  and  proclaimed  him 
expelled  from  Athens,  and  from  all  territory  that  the  Athenians 
rule ;  while  Demosthenes,  who  has  not  brought  us  Persian  gold, 
but  has  taken  bribes  for  himself  and  has  kept  them  to  this  day,  is 


ARGUMENTATION.  325 

dbout  to  receive  a  golden  wreath  from  you  !  And  Themistocles, 
and  they  who  died  at  Marathon  and  Plataea,  ay,  and  the  very 
graves  of  our  forefathers  —  do  you  not  think  that  they  will  utter 
a  voice  of  lamentation,  if  he  who  covenants  with  barbarians  to 
work  against  Greece  shall  be  —  crowned  ? ' 

"This  was  the  true  climax.  But  Aeschines  felt  the 
presence  of  the  Attic  rule.  He  must  not  end  thus.  The 
storm  must  be  laid  in  a  final  harmony.  And  so  he  passed 
on  to  the  most  tremendous  failure  that  ever  followed  so 
close  upon  a  triumph  :  — 

" '  O  Earth  and  Sunlight !  O  ye  influences  of  Goodness,  of 
Intelligence,  of  that  Culture  by  which  we  learn  to  distinguish 
things  beautiful  or  shameful  —  /  have  done  my  duty,  I  have 
finished.  If  the  part  of  the  accuser  has.  been  performed  well 
and  adequately  to  the  offense,  then  I  have  spoken  as  I  wished, 
—  if  defectively,  yet  I  have  spoken  as  I  could.  Judge  for 
yourselves  from  what  has  been  spoken  or  from  what  has  been 
left  unsaid,  and  give  your  sentence  in  accordance  with  justice 
and  with  the  interests  of  Athens.' "  l 

The  Work  of  Conviction  in  the  Peroration. 

The  work  that  the  Peroration  may  do  is,  like  that  of  the 
two  other  parts  of  a  forensic,  twofold.  It  may  appeal  to 
the  reason;  it  may  appeal  to  the  emotions.  Its  simplest 
work  in  conviction  is  that  called  for  by  the  conclusion 
of  the  brief,  recapitulation  of  the  argument.  Secondly, 
it  may  amplify  and  diminish  ;  that  is,  point  out  the  im- 
portance and  the  conclusiveness  of  the  proof  given  by  the 
writer,  the  unimportance  of  whatever  in  the  opponent's 
case  is  left  undestroyed,  the  inconclusiveness  of  his  proof 

1  Attic  Orators,  vol.  II,  pp.  406,  407,  Jebb. 


326  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

as  a  whole.  The  first  peroration  which  follows  shows  mere 
recapitulation.  The  quotation  from  A  Roman  Lawyer  in 
Jerusalem  given  on  pp.  221-223  is  the  first  part  of  a 
peroration  that  diminishes  by  showing  the  improbability 
of  the  ordinary  view  of  Judas,  and  amplifies  by  showing 
how  natural  the  writer's  view  makes  his  conduct.  The 
amplifying  part  of  the  peroration  is  given  below.  The 
third  quotation  shows  recapitulation  followed  by  ampli- 
fying. 

"  The  attitude  of  the  Jews  in  Russia  may  be  summed  up 
under  two  main  heads,  —  the  injuries  which  they  inflicted  upon 
the  government  and  upon  the  people.  Their  offences  against 
the  central  authority  were,  financially,  by  defrauding  it  through 
contract  work  and  smuggling;  socially,  by  encouraging  the 
venality  of  officials  and  by  forming  no  part  of  the  life  of  the 
nation ;  and  politically,  by  intriguing  for  their  own  advantage 
with  foreign  countries,  and  by  acting  as  spies.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  were  not  a  class  valuable  to  the  nation,  since  they 
made  poor  soldiers  ;  since,  far  from  being  artisans,  they  were 
mostly  engaged  in  dishonorable  occupations ;  since  they  were 
unlikely  to  add  to  Russia's  intellectual  progress  ;  and  since 
their  mode  of  life  was  revolting,  and  many  were  criminals.  In 
addition,  they  were  increasing' dangerously. 

"  Their  relations  with  the  people  may  be  briefly  summarized. 
The  Jews  were  a  source  of  ill-health  to  the  Christians  through 
their  filthy  habits,  and  through  their  habitual  sale  of  bad  meat 
and  vodka.  They  were  not  only  instruments  of  cruel  oppress 
sion,  but  were  defrauding  the  Christians  of  trade,  movable 
property,  their  future  labor,  harvests,  and  homes.  Moreover, 
in  protecting  itself  and  its  people  from  the  encroachments  of 
the  Jews,  the  Russian  government  acted  wisely,  defensibly,  and 
lawfully,  since  it  authorized  no  persecution,  and  punished  those 
who  had  been  guilty  of  inflicting  it.     The  expulsion  of  the  Jew$ 


ARGUMENTATION.  327 

t>y  Russia  was,  then,  a  protective  measure  for  state  and  people, 
inspired  by  a  desire  to  hold  Russia  for  the  Russians."  1 

The  following  should  be  read  with  the  quotation  on 
pp.  221-223  :  — 

"  But  take  the  other  view  that  Lysias  takes, 
All  is  at  once  consistent,  clear,  complete. 
Firm  in  the  faith  that  Christus  was  his  God, 
The  Great  Messiah  sent  to  save  the  world, 
He,  seeking  for  a  sign  —  not  for  himself, 
But  to  show  proof  to  all  that  he  was  God  — 
Conceived  this  plan,  rash  if  you  will,  but  grand. 
'Thinking  him  man,'  he  said,  'mere  mortal  man, 
They  seek  to  seize  him  —  I  will  make  pretence 
To  take  the  public  bribe  and  point  him  out, 
And  they  shall  go,  all  armed  with  swords  and  staves, 
Strong  with  the  power  of  law,  to  seize  on  him  — 
And  at  their  touch  lo,  God  himself  shall  stand 
Revealed  before  them,  and  their  swords  shall  drop: 
And  prostrate,  all  before  him  shall  adore, 
And  cry,  "  Behold  the  Lord  and  King  of  all  ! " ' 
But  when  the  soldiers  laid  their  hands  on  him 
And  bound  him  as  they  would  a  prisoner  vile, 
With  taunts,  and  mockery,  and  threats  of  death  — 
He  all  the  while  submitting  —  then  his  dream 
Burst  into  fragments  with  a  crash  ;  aghast 
The  whole  world  reeled  before  him  ;  the  dread  truth 
Swooped  like  a  sea  upon  him,  bearing  down 
His  thoughts  in  wild  confusion.     He  who  dreamed 
To  open  the  gates  of  glory  to  his  Lord, 
Opened  in  their  stead  the  prison's  jarring  door, 
And  saw  above  him  his  dim  dream  of  Love 
Change  to  a  Fury  stained  with  blood  and  crime. 
And  then  a  madness  seized  him,  and  remorse 
With  pangs  of  torture  drove  him  down  to  death. 

1  From  a  forensic  :  "The  Expulsion  of  the  Jews  by  Russia  was  Justifi- 
able." 


328  A  KG  UMENTA  TION. 

Conceive  with  me  that  sad  and  suffering  heart 

If  this  be  true  that  Lysias  says  —  Conceive  ! 

Alas  !  Orestes,  not  so  sad  thy  fate, 

For  thee  Apollo  pardoned,  purified  — 

Thy  Furies  were  appeased,  thy  peace  returned, 

But  Judas  perished,  tortured  unto  death, 

Unpardoned,  unappeased,  unpurified. 

And  long  as  Christus  shall  be  known  of  men 

His  name  shall  bear  the  brand  of  infamy, 

The  curse  of  generations  still  unborn."1 

"  This,  sir,  is  the  detail.  In  one  view,  behold  a  nation  over, 
whelmed  with  debt ;  her  revenues  wasted  ;  her  trade  declining ; 
the  affections  of  her  colonies  alienated  ;  the  duty  of  the  magis- 
trate transferred  to  the  soldiery ;  a  gallant  army,  which  never 
fought  unwillingly  but  against  their  fellow-subjects,  mouldering 
away  for  want  of  the  direction  of  a  man  of  common  abilities 
and  spirit ;  and,  in  the  last  instance,  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice become  odious  and  suspected  to  the  whole  body  of  the 
people.  This  deplorable  scene  admits  but  of  one  addition  — 
that  we  are  governed  by  councils,  from  which  a  reasonable 
man  can  expect  no  remedy  but  poison,  no  relief  but  death. 

"  If,  by  the  immediate  interposition  of  Providence,  it  were 
possible  for  us  to  escape  a  crisis  so  full  of  terror  and  despair, 
posterity  will  not  believe  the  history  of  the  present  times. 
They  will  either  conclude  that  our  distresses  were  imaginary,  or 
that  we  had  the  good  fortune  to  be  governed  by  men  of  ac- 
knowledged integrity  and  wisdom.  They  will  not  believe  it 
possible  that  their  ancestors  could  have  survived,  or  recovered 
from  so  desperate  a  condition,  while  a  Duke  of  Grafton  was 
Prime  Minister,  a  Lord  North  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  a 
Weymouth  and  a  Hillsborough  Secretaries  of  State,  a  Granby 
Commander-in-chief,  and  a  Mansfield  chief  criminal  judge  of 
the  kingdom."2 

1  A  Roman  Lawyer  in  Jerusalem,  pp.  14,  15.     W.  W.  Story. 

2  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  58,  59. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  329 

The  Work  of  Persuasion  in  the  Peroration. 

The  persuasive  work  of  the  peroration  is  (i)  to  take 
advantage  of  the  last  opportunity  offered  the  writer  to  win 
the  sympathy  of  his  audience  for  himself  or  his  subject, 
and  (2)  to  stir  the  passions  of  his  hearers.  In  all  the 
cases  requiring  persuasive  work,  which  were  mentioned  in 
treating  the  introduction  to  a  forensic  —  a  dull  or  technical 
subject,  an  audience  that  does  not  know  the  speaker,  or  is 
hostile  to  him  or  to  his  subject,  etc.,  —  the  writer  or 
speaker  will  find  in  his  peroration  another  good  opportu- 
nity for  conciliatory  work.  He  has  a  chance  there  to 
show  how  well  he  has  kept  promises  he  made  in  beginning, 
to  make  his  audience  see  that  though  the  subject  is  dull 
or  technical  he  has  done  his  best  to  lighten  or  clear  it  ; 
why  the  subject  is  important  enough  for  every  man  to  feel 
repaid  for  the  labor  of  attending  closely  to  the  speech. 
He  can  make  his  audience  feel  that  though  he  came  before 
them  unknown  he  has  justified  his  right  to  speak,  and  has 
shown  them  common  interests,  bonds  of  sympathy,  which 
should  prevent  hostility  to  him  or  to  his  subject.  It  is  the 
general  recognition  of  the  chance  which  the  peroration 
offers  for  appeals  to  the  emotions  that  has  led  Fourth  of 
July  orators  to  think  their  addresses  cannot  end  properly 
without  some  "  spread-eagle"  outburst  —  the  old  story  of 
the  incorrect  application  of  a  correct  principle.  The 
following  lines,  which  close  the  First  Olynthiac  of  Demos- 
thenes, persuade  by  showing  to  each  class  in  the  listening 
audience  the  special  appeal  that  the  proposed  plan  for 
succor  of  Olynthus  has  for  it :  — 

"  On  all  these  accounts,  then,  we  must  unite  to  lend  our 
succor,  and  drive  off  the  war  yonder ;  the  rich,  that,  spending  a 


330  ARG  UMENTA  TIOAT. 

little  for  the  abundance  which  they  happily  possess,  they  may 
enjoy  the  residue  in  security ;  the  young,  that,  gaining  military 
experience  in  Philip's  territory,  they  may  become  redoubtable 
champions  to  preserve  their  own  ;  the  orators,  that  they  may 
pass  a  good  account  of  their  statesmanship  ;  for  on  the  result 
of  measures  will  depend  your  judgment  of  their  conduct.  May 
it  for  every  cause  be  prosperous."  * 

The  closing  lines  of  the  Funeral  Oration  by  Hypereides 
on  the  death  of  Leosthenes  and  his  friends,  before  Lamia, 
shows  direct  appeal  to  the  emotions :  — 

"  It  is  hard,  perhaps,  to  comfort  those  who  are  in  such  a 
sorrow  ;  grief  is  not  laid  to  rest  by  speech  or  by  observance ; 
rather  is  it  for  the  nature  of  the  mourner,  and  the  nearness  of 
the  lost,  to  determine  the  boundaries  of  anguish.  Still,  we 
must  take  heart,  and  lighten  pain  as  we  may,  and  remember 
not  the  death  of  the  departed  but  the  good  name  also  that  they 
have  left  behind  them.  We  owe  not  tears  to  their  fate,  but 
rather  great  praises  to  their  deeds.  If  they  came  not  to  old 
age  among  men,  they  have  got  the  glory  that  never  grows  old, 
and  have  been  made  blessed  perfectly.  Those  among  them 
who  died  childless  shall  have  as  their  inheritors  the  immortal 
eulogies  of  Greece  ;  and  those  of  them  who  have  left  children 
behind  them  have  bequeathed  a  trust  of  which  their  country's 
love  will  assume  the  guardianship.  More  than  this,  —  if  to  die 
is  to  be  as  though  we  had  never  been,  then  these  have  passed 
away  from  sickness  and  pain  and  from  all  the  accidents  of 
the  earthly  life ;  or,  if  there  is  feeling  in  the  under-world,  and 
if,  as  we  conjecture,  the  care  of  the  Divine  Power  is  over  it,  then 
it  may  well  be  that  they  who  rendered  aid  to  the  worship  of  the 
gods  in  the  hour  of  its  imminent  desolation  are  most  precious 
to  that  Power's  providence."2 

1  The  Olynthiac  and  other  Public  Orations  of  Demosthenes,  pp.  44,  45. 
C.  R.  Kennedy.     Harper  &  Bros. 

2  Attic  Orators,  vol.  II,  pp.  392,  393,  R.  C.  Jebb. 


ARG UMENTA  Tl 'ON.  331 

Lord  Erskine,  in  the  concluding  words  of  his  defense  of 
Lord  George  Gordon,  so  sums  up  as  first  to  show  the 
jury,  whom  he  had  feared  might  easily  be  rendered 
hostile,  that  the  prisoner,  as  was  promised,  had  been 
shown  to  be  not  guilty  of  the  crime  charged  against  him. 
Then,  instead  of  appealing  directly  to  the  emotions  of  his 
auditors,  Lord  Erskine  suggested  possible  appeals  to  their 
sympathies.  These,  though  he  left  them  immediately, 
began  at  once  to  work  on  the  minds  of  his  hearers.  The 
apparent  willingness  to  waive  any  emotional  appeals 
served  to  produce  in  the  minds  of  the  jury  trust  in 
Lord  Erskine's  confidence  in  the  absolute  convincing- 
ness of  his  proof.  By  this  means,  also,  he  forced  the 
jury  to  make  itself  responsible  for  any  part  that  their 
sympathies  might  have  in  the  verdict  given.  He  could 
say  that  he  had  busied  himself  only  with  what  rested  on 
evidence  and  must  appeal  to  their  reason.  Students  of 
Persuasion  should  study  this  peroration,  for  it  does  much 
in  a  few  lines.  It  is  a  model  of  restraint,  of  succinct 
persuasion. 

"  I  may  now,  therefore,  relieve  you  from  the  pain  of  hearing 
me  any  longer,  and  be  myself  relieved  from  speaking  on  a  sub- 
ject which  agitates  and  distresses  me.  Since  Lord  George 
Gordon  stands  clear  of  every  hostile  act  or  purpose  against  the 
Legislature  of  his  country,  or  the  properties  of  his  fellow- 
subjects  —  since  the  whole  tenor  of  his  conduct  repels  the 
belief  of  the  traitorous  intention  charged  by  the  indictment  — 
my  task  is  finished.  I  shall  make  no  address  to  your  passions. 
I  will  not  remind  you  of  the  long  and  rigorous  imprisonment  he 
has  suffered  ;  I  will  not  speak  to  you  of  his  great  youth,  of  his 
illustrious  birth,  and  of  his  uniformly  animated  and  generous 
zeal  in  Parliament  for  the  Constitution  of  his  countrv.     Such 


332  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

topics  might  be  useful  in  the  balance  of  a  doubtful  case ;  yet, 
even  then,  I  should  have  trusted  to  the  honest  hearts  of  Eng- 
lishmen to  have  felt  them  without  excitation.  At  present,  the 
plain  and  rigid  rules  of  justice  and  truth  are  sufficient  to  entitle 
me  to  your  verdict."  1 

The  close  of  the  speech  of  Lysias  Against  Eratosthenes 
shows  an  application  of  the  case  to  the  different  parts  of 
the  audience,  similar  to  that  of  Demosthenes  in  the  extract 
just  given.  It  is,  however,  a  more  direct  appeal  to  the 
passions. 

"  I  wish,  before  I  go  down,  to  recall  a  few  things  to  the 
recollection  of  both  parties,  the  party  of  the  Town  and  the 
party  of  the  Peiraeus  ;  in  order  that,  in  passing  sentence,  you 
may  have  before  you  as  warnings  the  calamities  which  have 
come  upon  you  through  these  men. 

"  And  you,  first,  of  the  Town  — reflect  that  under  their  iron 
rule  you  were  forced  to  wage  with  brothers,  with  sons,  with 
citizens,  a  war  of  such  a  sort  that,  having  been  vanquished,  you 
are  the  equals  of  the  conquerors,  whereas,  had  you  conquered, 
you  would  have  been  the  slaves  of  the  Tyrants.  They  would 
have  gained  wealth  for  their  own  houses  from  the  administra- 
tion ;  you  have  impoverished  yours  in  the  war  with  one  another; 
for  they  did  not  deign  that  you  should  thrive  along  with  them, 
though  they  forced  you  to  become  odious  in  their  company ; 
such  being  their  consummate  arrogance  that,  instead  of  seeking 
to  win  your  loyalty  by  giving  you  partnership  in  their  prizes, 
they  fancied  themselves  friendly  if  they  allowed  you  a  share  of 
their  dishonours.  Now,  therefore,  that  you  are  in  security,  take 
vengeance  to  the  utmost  of  your  power  both  for  yourselves  and 
for  the  men  of  the  Peiraeus  ;  reflecting  that  these  men,  villains 
that  they  are,  were  your  masters,  but  that  now  good  men  are 
your  fellow-citizens,  —  your  fellow-soldiers  against  the  enemy, 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  152,  153. 


ARGUMENTATION.  333 

your  fellow-counsellors  in  the  interest  of  the  State ;  remember- 
ing, too,  those  allies  whom  these  men  posted  on  the  acropolis 
as  sentinels  over  their  despotism  and  your  servitude.  To  you 
—  though  much  more  might  be  said  —  I  say  this  much  only. 

"  But  you  of  the  Peiraeus  —  think,  in  the  first  place,  of  your 
arms  —  think  how,  after  fighting  many  a  battle  on  foreign  soil, 
you  were  stripped  of  those  arms,  not  by  the  enemy,  but  by  these 
men  in  time  of  peace ;  think,  next,  how  you  were  warned  by 
public  criers  from  the  city  bequeathed  to  you  by  your  fathers, 
and  how  your  surrender  was  demanded  by  the  cities  in  which 
you  were  exiles.  Resent  these  things  as  you  resented  them 
in  banishment ;  and  recollect,  at  the  same  time,  the  other  evils 
that  you  have  suffered  at  their  hands ;  —  how  some  were 
snatched  out  of  the  market-place  or  from  temples  and  put  to  a 
violent  death  ;  how  others  were  torn  from  children,  parents,  or 
wife,  and  forced  to  become  their  own  murderers,  nor  allowed 
the  common  decencies  of  burial,  by  men  who  believed  their 
own  empire  to  be  surer  than  the  vengeance  from  on  high. 

"And  you,  the  remnant  who  escaped  death,  after  perils  in 
many  places,  after  wanderings  to  many  cities  and  expulsion 
from  all,  beggared  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  parted  from  chil- 
dren, left  in  a  fatherland  which  was  hostile  or  in  the  land  of 
strangers,  came  through  many  obstacles  to  the  Peiraeus. 
Dangers  many  and  great  confronted  you ;  but  you  proved 
yourselves  brave  men ;  you  freed  some,  you  restored  others  to 
their  country. 

"  Had  you  been  unfortunate  and  missed  those  aims,  you 
yourselves  would  now  be  exiles,  in  fear  of  suffering  what  you 
suffered  before.  Owing  to  the  character  of  these  men,  neither 
temples  nor  altars,  which  even  in  the  sight  of  evil-doers  have  a 
protecting  virtue,  would  have  availed  you  against  wrong ;  — 
while  those  of  your  children  who  are  here  would  have  been 
enduring  the  outrages  of  these  men,  and  those  who  are  in  a 
foreign  land,  in  the  absence  of  all  succor,  would,  for  the 
smallest  debt,  have  been  enslaved. 


334  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

"  I  do  not  wish,  however,  to  speak  of  what  might  have  been, 
seeing  that  what  these  men  have  done  is  beyond  my  power  to 
tell ;  and,  indeed,  it  is  a  task  not  for  one  accuser,  or  for  two, 
but  for  a  host. 

"  Yet  is  my  indignation  perfect  for  the  temples  which  these 
men  bartered  away  or  defiled  by  entering  them  ;  for  the  city 
which  they  humbled ;  for  the  arsenals  which  they  dismantled  ; 
for  the  dead,  whom  you,  since  you  could  not  rescue  them  alive, 
must  vindicate  in  their  death.  And  I  think  that  they  are 
listening  to  us,  and  will  be  aware  of  you  when  you  give  your 
verdict,  deeming  that  such  as  absolve  these  men  have  passed 
sentence  upon  them,  and  that  such  as  exact  retribution  from 
these  have  taken  vengeance  in  their  names. 

"  I  will  cease  accusing.  You  have  heard  —  seen  —  suffered  : 
you  have  them  :  judge."  * 

The  Extent  to  which  Persuasion  and  Conviction 
should  mingle  in  a  peroration. 

The  extent  to  which  persuasion  and  conviction  should 
mingle  in  a  peroration  will,  as  in  the  introduction  to  a 
forensic  and  in  the  argument  itself,  depend  on  the  nature 
of  the  subject,  i.e.,  whether  it  calls  for  or  permits  persua- 
sion, and  on  the  conditions  under  which  the  speech  is  to 
be  heard  or  the  paper  read.  Perorations  may  range,  of 
course,  from  those  giving  only  one  of  the  four  kinds  of 
work  possible  in  a  peroration,  through  those  showing  re- 
capitulation with  amplification  and  diminishing,  or  show- 
ing these  two  and  some  conciliatory  words,  or  appeals  to 
the  emotions,  to  perorations  showing  all  four  kinds  of 
work.  To  consider  when  one  should  use  persuasion,  to 
what  extent,  and  how  one  should  gain  it,  belongs,  of 
course,  to  the  next  chapter,  Persuasion. 

1  Attic  Orators,  vol.  I,  pp.  185-188,  R.  C.  Jebb. 


ARG  UMENTA  TION.  335 

The  Qualities  of  a  Good  Peroration. 

In  general,  the  requisites  of  a  good  peroration  are :  an 
element  of  surprise ;  avoidance  of  statements  not  in  the 
argument  proper  ;  brevity;  clearness  ;  and  elegance} 

i.  An  Element  of  Surprise.  —  It  has  been  said  with 
considerable  truth  that  an  element  of  surprise  in  the 
peroration  is  desirable.  Certainly,  if  a  reader  sees  early 
in  the  work  just  what  the  writer's  conclusion  is  to  be, 
the  mere  stating  of  it  at  the  end  cannot  be  very  interest- 
ing. Yet,  as  was  seen  on  p.  275,  it  is  by  no  means  wise 
in  most  cases  to  retain  till  the  end  of  the  work  the  exact 
conclusion  to  be  reached.  The  peroration  will  gain  in 
force  and  interest,  however,  if  some  application  of  the 
conclusion  to  the  conditions  of  the  audience,  or  some 
appeal  to  their  emotions,  be  made.  The  process  of  ampli- 
fying or  diminishing  may,  too,  point  out  interestingly  the 
weakness  of  the  opponent's  case  or  the  strength  of  one's 
own.  In  some  of  these  ways  an  element  of  novelty,  of 
the  unexpected,  in  the  peroration  may  readily  be  gained. 
For  examples  see  the  illustrations  on  pp.  327,  328. 

2.  Avoidance  of  Statements  not  in  the  Argument  Proper. 
—  There  are  two  errors  in  recapitulation  by  no  means 
uncommon;  especially  in  extemporaneous  speaking  or  in 
speaking  from  slight  notes. 

(a)  The  orator,  in  summing  up  his  proof  in  the  per- 
oration, may  bring  into  it  new  arguments.  He  notices 
as  he  sums  up  his  arguments  that,  through  forgetfulness, 
either  because  of  hasty  work  or  of  a  tendency  of  mind, 

1  These  are,  with  the  exception  of  the  first,  requisites  of  a  peroration 
given  by  Dr.  Phelps.  For  an  interesting  discussion  of  them  see  his  Theory 
of  Preaching,  pp.  520-522. 


336  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

one  or  two  arguments  he  intended  to  use  have  not  been 
treated.  He  tucks  them  in,  therefore,  at  the  last 
minute.  Doubtless,  if  they  are  needed,  it  is  better 
for  the  speaker  to  state  them  than  to  lose  them,  but 
by  putting  them  into  the  peroration  he  loses  the  finish 
of  his  work  and  lays  himself  open  to  a  suspicion  of  care- 
less workmanship  throughout  his  speech.  This  suspi- 
cion may  make  hearers  hesitate  to  trust  his  work  as  a 
whole.  For  the  writer  who  has  time  to  prepare  his  work 
such  patching  up  of  a  poor  job  at  its  end  is  inexcusable. 
Any  need  for  such  patching  shows  that  the  argument  is 
incomplete.  It  should  be  met  by  the  insertion  of  the 
proof  in  question  at  its  proper  place  in  the  forensic  or 
speech. 

(b)  The  writer  or  speaker  may  refer  to  matters  as 
proved  in  the  argument  itself,  which  have  not  been 
treated  at  all.  This  usually  happens  through  inadver- 
tence, the  writer  thinking  he  has  treated  the  argument 
when  he  has  not.  In  any  case  such  a  method  weakens 
the  work.  A  reader  or  hearer  will  judge  the  writer  or 
speaker  either  careless  or  untrustworthy,  and  either  judg- 
ment is  disadvantageous  to  the  worker. 

3.  Brevity.  —  With  college  students  as  yet  untrained 
in  Argumentation  a  favorite  ending  for  a  forensic  is: 
"  Here,  then,  are  my  arguments.  I  think,  therefore,  that 
I  have  proved  my  case."  This  is  given  without  any 
recapitulation  of  the  arguments  stated  in  the  forensic. 
Such  work  is  too  much  like  that  of  the  old  minister  of 
whom  Dr.  Phelps  wrote.1  The  minister  always  preached 
just  an  hour,  with  his  watch  lying  open  before  him. 
When  he  saw  that  the  hour  was  past,  no  matter  where  he 

1  The  Theory  of  Preaching,  C.  Scribner  Sons,  1893. 


AR G  UMENTA  TION.  337 

happened  to  be  in  his  discourse,  he  broke  off  at  once,  say- 
ing:  "  Brethren,  the  hour  is  up.  Let  us  pray."  What 
must  have  been  the  final  impression  left  by  these  edifying 
discourses!  There  is  such  a  thing,  then,  as  too  great 
brevity  in  a  peroration,  but  a  student  should  aim  to 
accomplish  those  portions  of  the  possible  work  of  a  pero- 
ration which  the  conditions  of  his  subject  seem  to  demand 
as  briefly  as  he  can.  A  clear,  forcible,  final  impression 
is  what  he  is  trying  to  leave,  and  a  lengthy  peroration  — 
i.e.,  one  containing  many  new  matters  for  thought  or 
long  involved  statements  of  what  has  been  shown  to  be 
true  —  is  liable  to  defeat  its  own  end. 

The  fact  that  the  conditions  under  which  the  speech  is 
given  or  the  paper  read  must  determine  the  length  of  the 
peroration  is  well  illustrated  by  the  end  of  Oliver  Crom- 
well's speech  in  dissolving  the  First  Protectorate  Parlia- 
ment. 

"  I  have  troubled  you  with  a  long  speech ;  and  I  believe  it 
may  not  have  the  same  resentment  with  all  that  it  hath  with 
some.  But  because  that  is  unknown  to  me,  I  shall  leave  it  to 
God  ;  —  and  conclude  with  this :  That  I  think  myself  bound, 
as  in  my  duty  to  God,  and  to  the  People  of  these  Nations  for 
their  safety  and  good  in  every  respect,  —  I  think  it  my  duty  to 
tell  you  that  it  is  not  for  the  profit  of  these  Nations,  nor  for 
common  and  public  good,  for  you  to  continue  here  any  longer. 
And  therefore  I  do  declare  unto  you,  That  I  do  dissolve  this 
Parliament."1 

In  itself  this  seems  abrupt,  but  if  a  reader  studies  the 
speech  itself,  he  will  see  that  the  peroration  is  a  fitting 
close  to  it.  It  emphasizes,  by  its  neglect  of  any  careful 
summary  of  the  arguments,  any  application  of  them  to 

1  Political  Orations.  Camelot  Series,  p.  39. 


338  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

the  audience,  any  elaborate  appeal  to  the  emotions,  Crom- 
well's determination  to  carry  things  with  a  high  hand, 
and  his  belief  that  he  was  acting  as  a  divine  agent.  Cer- 
tainly, however,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  length 
and  the  involved  style  of  the  following  final,  summary  of 
Sir  Philip  Sidney's  argument,  The  Defence  of  Poesy, 
defeats  the  very  end  for  which  the  peroration  exists  —  to 
leave  a  clear  and  forcible  final  impression  on  the  reader  :  — 

"  So  that  since  the  ever  praiseworthy  poesy  is  full  of  virtue- 
breeding  delightfulness,  and  void  of  no  gift  that  ought  to  be 
in  the  noble  name  of  learning  ;  since  the  blames  laid  against 
it  are  either  false  or  feeble ;  since  the  cause  why  it  is  not 
esteemed  in  England  is  the  fault  of  poet-apes,  not  poets;  since, 
lastly,  our  tongue  is  most  fit  to  honor  poesy,  and  to  be  honored 
by  poesy  ;  I  conjure  you  all  that  have  had  the  evil  luck  to 
read  this  ink-wasting  toy  of  mine,  even  in  the  name  of  the  Nine 
Muses,  no  more  to  scorn  the  sacred  mysteries  of  poesy;  no 
more  to  laugh  at  the  name  of  poets,  as  though  they  were  next 
inheritors  to  fools  ;  no  more  to  jest  at  the  reverend  title  of 
'a  rimer';  but  to  believe,  with  Aristotle,  that  they  were  the 
ancient  treasurers  of  the  Grecians'  divinity  ;  to  believe,  with 
Bembus,  that  they  were  the  first  bringers-in  of  all  civility  ;  to 
believe,  with  Scaliger,  that  no  philosopher's  precepts  can 
sooner  make  you  an  honest  man  than  the  reading  of  Virgil; 
to  believe,  with  Clauserus,  the  translator  of  Cornutus,  that  it 
pleased  the  Heavenly  Deity  by  Hesiod  and  Homer,  under  the 
veil  of  fables,  to  give  us  all  knowledge,  logic,  rhetoric,  phil- 
osophy natural  and  moral,  and  quid  non?  to  believe,  with  me, 
that  there  are  many  mysteries  contained  in  poetry,  which  of 
purpose  were  written  darkly,  lest  by  profane  wits  it  should  be 
abused ;  to  believe,  with  Landino,  that  they  are  so  beloved  of 
the  gods,  that  whatsoever  they  write  proceeds  of  a  divine  fury, 
lastly,  to  believe  themselves,  when  they  tell  you  they  will  make 
you  immortal  by  their  verses. 


ARGUMENTATION.  339 

"  Thus  doing,  your  name  shall  flourish  in  the  printers'  shops. 
Thus  doing,  you  shall  be  of  kin  to  many  a  poetical  preface. 
Thus  doing,  you  shall  be  most  fair,  most  rich,  most  wise,  most 
all ;  you  shall  dwell  upon  superlatives.  Thus  doing,  though 
you  be  libertino  patre  natus,  you  shall  suddenly  grow  Herculea 
proles,  si  quid  mea  carmifia  possunt.  Thus  doing,  your  soul 
shall  be  placed  with  Dante's  Beatrice  or  Virgil's  Anchises. 

"  But  if  —  fie  of  such  a  but !  —  you  be  born  so  near  the  dull- 
making  cataract  of  Nilus,  that  you  cannot  hear  the  planet-like 
music  of  poetry ;  if  you  have  so  earth-creeping  a  mind  that  it 
cannot  lift  itself  up  to  look  to  the  sky  of  poetry,  or  rather,  by 
a  certain  rustical  disdain  will  become  such  a  mome  as  to  be  a 
Momus  of  poetry  ;  then,  though  I  will  not  wish  unto  you  the 
ass's  ears  of  Midas,  nor  to  be  driven  by  a  poet's  verses,  as 
Bubonax  was,  to  hang  himself,  nor  to  be  rimed  to  death,  as  is 
said  to  be  done  in  Ireland ;  yet  thus  much  curse  I  must  send 
you  on  the  behalf  of  all  poets  :  —  that  while  you  live  you  live 
in  love,  and  never  get  favor  for  lacking  skill  of  a  sonnet ;  and 
when  you  die,  your  memory  die  from  the  earth  for  want  of  an 
epitaph."  l 

4.  Clearness.  —  Above  all,  let  a  peroration  be  clear. 
Avoid  any  confusion  in  stating  what  has  been  proved 
true  or  false.  Do  not  shift  the  order  of  the  parts  of  the 
work  in  naming  them  over.  Do  not  refer  vaguely  to  what 
has  been  proved.  What  a  writer  or  a  speaker  is  endeav- 
oring in  his  peroration  to  give  his  reader  or  hearer  may 
be  compared  to  a  map  of  the  country  through  which  he 
has  traveled,  with  red  lines  under  the  places  that  should 
be  particularly  remembered ;  or  a  formula  so  simple  and 
so  carefully  emphasized  that  it  and  its  signification  must 
indelibly  impress  themselves  on  a  reader's  or  a  hearer's 

1  Defence  of  Poesy,  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  pp.  57,  58,  A.  S.  Cook.  Ginn  &  Co., 
1890. 


340  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

mind.     Hence,  above  all,  a  peroration  must  be  clear,  — 
in  thought,  in  construction,  and  in  phrasing. 

5.  Elegance. — The  perfect  peroration  doubtless  has 
another  quality  —  elegance.  What  was  said  (on  p.  276), 
however,  of  the  inadvisability  of  attempts  at  anything 
except  rudimentary  elegance  in  some  kinds  of  work  must, 
of  course,  be  borne  in  mind.  It  is  certainly,  in  most 
cases,  entirely  safe  to  work  on  the  principle  that  an 
abrupt  close  to  one's  work  is  inelegant,  and  therefore 
inadvisable;  but,  as  has  been  seen,  the  ending  of  the 
speech  of  Cromwell  in  dissolving  the  houses  of  Parliament 
better  accomplished  its  purpose  by  its  extreme  abrupt- 
ness. That  is,  there  may  be  exceptions  to  this  rule.  It 
may,  however,  be  said  with  safety  that  in  perorations  a 
writer  should  avoid  spread-eagle  oratory.  Empty  bom- 
bast, whatever  is  unreal,  can  never  be  elegant.  When, 
too,  the  final  summary  can  be  only  a  last  statement  of  a 
formula  often  repeated  in  the  development  of  the  whole 
argument,  and  gaining  in  size  each  time  that  it  appears, 
a  mere  change  in  phrasing,  not  in  the  order,  will  often 
give  ease  to  the  final  form.  These  two  rules  hold,  in  all 
cases,  for  whatever  aids  simplicity  of  style  and  avoids 
wearisome  iteration  of  the  same  phrases  is  always  pleasing. 

The  Aim  of  a  Peroration. 

The  ultimate  aim  of  a  peroration  is,  then,  to  bring  the. 
argument  to  a  full  and  perfect  close.  To  this  end  a 
knowledge  when  to  stop,  an  element  of  the  unexpected, 
avoidance  of  statements  not  in  the  argument  itself,  brevity, 
clearness,  and  elegance  will  contribute.  The  peroration 
of  the  speech  of  Demosthenes  shows  the  perfect  blending 
of  all  these  qualities :  — 


ARGUMENTATION.  341 

" '  Here  is  the  proof.  Not  when  my  extradition  was  de- 
manded, not  when  they  sought  to  arraign  me  before  the 
Amphictyonic  Council,  not  for  all  their  menaces  or  their  offers, 
not  when  they  set  these  villains  like  wild  beasts  upon  me, 
have  I  ever  been  untrue  to  the  loyalty  I  bear  you.  From  the 
outset,  1  chose  the  path  of  a  straightforward  and  righteous 
statesmanship,  to  cherish  the  dignities,  the  prerogatives,  the 
glories  of  my  country :  to  exalt  them :  to  stand  by  their  cause. 
I  do  not  go  about  the  market-place  radiant  with  joy  at  my 
country's  disasters,  holding  out  my  hand  and  telling  my  good 
news  to  any  one  who,  I  think,  is  likely  to  report  it  in  Macedon  ; 
I  do  not  hear  of  my  country's  successes  with  a  shudder  and  a 
groan,  and  a  head  bent  to  earth,  like  the  bad  men  who  pull 
Athens  to  pieces,  as  if,  in  so  doing,  they  were  not  tearing  their 
own  reputations  to  shreds,  who  turn  their  faces  to  foreign 
lands,  and,  when  an  alien  has  triumphed  by  the  ruin  of  the 
Greeks,  give  their  praises  to  that  exploit,  and  vow  that  vigilance 
must  be  used  to  render  that  triumph  eternal. 

" '  Never,  Powers  of  Heaven,  may  any  brow  of  the  Immor- 
tals be  bent  in  approval  of  that  prayer !  Rather,  if  it  may  be, 
breathe  even  into  these  men  a  better  mind  and  heart ;  but  if 
so  it  is  that  to  these  can  come  no  healing,  then  grant  that 
these,  and  these  alone,  may  perish  utterly  and  early  on  land 
and  on  the  deep:  and  to  us,  the  remnant,  send  the  swiftest 
deliverance  from  the  terrors  gathered  above  our  heads,  send 
us  the  salvation  that  stands  fast  perpetually.' 

"  Two  thousand  years  have  challenged  a  tradition  which 
lives,  and  will  always  live,  wherever  there  is  left  a  sense 
for  the  grandest  music  which  an  exquisite  language  could 
yield  to  a  sublime  enthusiasm  —  that,  when  Demosthenes 
ceased,  those  who  had  come  from  all  parts  of  Greece  to 
hear,  that  day,  the  epitaph  of  the  freedom  which  they 
had  lost,  and  a  defence  of  the  honour  which  they  could 
still  leave  to  their  children,  had  listened  to  the  master- 


342  ARGUMENTATION. 

piece  of  the  old  world's  oratory,  perhaps  to  the  supreme 
achievement  of  human  eloquence."  1 

Summary. 

In  a  forensic  there  are,  then,  three  parts,  corresponding 
to  the  introduction,  the  brief  proper,  and  the  conclusion 
of  a  brief:  namely,  the  introduction,  the  argument  itself, 
and  the  peroration.  Each  has  a  twofold  work  that  it  may 
do:  *(i)  in  conviction,  (2)  in  persuasion.  The  work  of  a 
forensic  in  conviction  is  to  be  accomplished  through  a 
well-made  brief,  good  analysis,  careful  selection  of  evi- 
dence, and  regard  for  the  suggestions  about  handling 
evidence.  '  What  a  forensic  may  accomplish  in  persuasion, 
also,  this  chapter  should  have  made  clear.  Study  in  the 
details  by  which  these  persuasive  results  may  be  attained 
belongs,  however,  to  the  next  chapter,  on  Persuasion. 

1  Attic  Orators,  vol.  II,  pp.  416-418,  R.  C.  Jebb. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

PERSUASION. 
The  Reason  for  the  Importance  of  Persuasive  Methods. 

THE  last  chapter  showed  the  importance  of  persua- 
sion in  Argumentation.  This  importance  arises 
from  two  main  sources.  The  first  is  what  has  already 
been  made  clear  —  that  without  the  preliminary  aid  of 
persuasion  it  is  sometimes  useless  or  impossible  to  employ 
the  methods  of  conviction.  The  second  is  that  most 
argumentation  aims  to  do  more  than  to  convince  ;  it  aims 
to  produce  action  as  a  result  of  the  conviction  gained. 
Unfortunately,  to  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  an  idea 
does  not  mean  that  he  who  is  convinced  will  act  promptly 
in  accordance  with  that  idea.  Only  in  rare  cases  is  that 
true.  Any  one  who  has  begged  money  for  a  charity  knows 
that  it  is  not  difficult  to  make  people  admit  that  they 
think  the  charity  deserves  every  possible  aid,  but  that  it 
is  a  quite  different  matter  to  get  any  one  who  has  made 
this  admission  to  subscribe  to  the  charity.  There  are 
probably  few  among  those  citizens  who  do  not  vote  at 
elections  who  could  not  readily  be  made  to  admit  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  all  citizens  to  vote  carefully  at  all  elections, 
but  it  will  be  difficult  to  prevail  on  them,  because  of  this 
conviction  alone,  to  overcome  their  own  indifference  to 
political  matters,  to  travel  some  distance  to  the  polls,  or 
to  take  the  trouble  of  deciding  between  two  candidates 
alike  distasteful  to  them.     A  man  may  be  unable  to  deny 


344  A  R  G  UMENTA  TION. 

another's  arguments,  and  yet  long-formed  habits  and  preju- 
dices, though  weakened  for  a  moment  by  the  cogency  of 
the  second  man's  arguments,  will  reassert  themselves 
^when  the  arguer  is  gone,  and  render  his  words  resultless. 
Against  prejudice  and  long-acquired  habits  the  methods 
of  conviction  often  find  themselves  futile,  and  hope  liea 
\  \  only  in  the  use  of  persuasion.  The  methods  of  conviction, 
then,  aim  to  produce  only  agreement,  in  the  reader  or  hearer, 
with  the  writer  or  speaker ;  the  methods  of  persuasion  aim 
to  produce  action  as  a  result  of  sucJi  agreement. 

The  Field  of  Persuasion. 

When  a  man  tries  to  rouse  his  fellow-men  to  action  it 
may  be,  of  course,  to  a  single  act  or  to  a  series  of  acts, 
even  to  forming  a  habit.  Evidently  it  should  be  much 
easier  to  persuade  a  man  to  a  single  act  than  to  a  series 
of  acts.  It  is  easier  to  get  the  drunkard  to  forego  some 
particular  glass  of  liquor  than  to  lead  him  to  renounce  all 
glasses  of  liquor.  So  well  recognized  is  this  that  those 
who  have  charge  of  the  morals  of  the  people  try  first  td 
produce  only  the  single  beneficial  action,  and  then,  by 
oft-repeated  appeals  and  arguments,  strive  to  maintain 
them  in  the  right  path.  It  is  also  easier  to  persuade 
people  to  continue  conduct  to  which  they  have  becomd 
accustomed,  to  maintain  habits  already  formed,  than  it  is 
to  persuade  them  to  entirely  new  acts,  and  either  is  easier 
than  to  dissuade  them  to  give  up  old  habits.  Yet  all 
three  of  these  are  work  that  belongs  to  Persuasion.  It 
would  seem,  then,  that  since  persuasion  is  so  important  a 
matter  in  Argumentation,  and  has  work  to  do  that  varies 
decidedly   in   difficulty,    there   should    be    some    rules   to 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  345 

guide  a  student.  Yet,  though  the  rules  of  Conviction 
will  hold  good  wherever  rational  beings  are  met,  men 
differ  so  widely  on  the  emotional  and  the  ethical  sides  of 
their  natures  —  those  with  which  Persuasion  concerns 
itself  —  that,  as  the  reader  will  see,  it  is  impossible  to 
give  hard  and  fast  rules  for  persuasion.  If,  however,  a 
student  considers  from  what  sources  persuasive  effects 
may  be  derived,  he  will  be  able  to  gather  some  sugges- 
tions for  his  guidance.  The  last  chapter  has  told  him 
when  he  needs  persuasion.  If  he  knows  whence  he  can 
gain  persuasion,  he  can  then  study  how  much  to  use  and 
how  to  employ  what  he  uses  —  the  two  most  difficult 
matters  in  Persuasion. 

The  Sources  of  Persuasion. 

The  means  by  which  a  writer  or  speaker  aims  to  pro- 
duce action  in  his  audience  is  —  to  define  broadly  —  by 
winning  sympathy  for  himself  or  his  subject,  usually  for 
30th.  This  sympathy  may  be  derived  from  four  sources  : 
the  nature  of  the  subject  itself  ;  the  rhetorical  treatment 
^iven  it  ;  the  application  of  the  subject  to  the  audience 
n  question ;  and  personal  qualities  of  the  speaker  or 
writer. 

Persuasion  Arising  from  the  Nature  of  the  Subject. 

A  popular  topic,  of  course,  from  its  very  nature  wins 
ympathy  at  the  outset  for  a  writer  or  speaker.  This 
popularity  may  come  from  either  of  two  sources  :  because 
he  audience  is  not  prejudiced  either  way  in  regard  to  it 
nd  is  eager  to  know  almost  anything  about  it,  or  because 
he  subject  offers  at  the  outset  a  presumption  in  its  own 


346  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

favor.  When  a  man  treats  a  popular  subject,  everybody 
is  willing  to  listen,  ready  to  aid  him  with  interest  and 
applause.  A  man  who  knows  his  subject  and  has  an 
entertaining  and  instructive  address  to  deliver  on  such  a 
topic  talks,  or  writes,  under  the  easiest  conditions.  When 
a  long-accepted  theory  is  attacked,  he  who  defends  it  has 
a  presumption  in  his  favor  from  the  very  fact  that  the 
theory  has  so  long  stood  unassailed,  or  successful  against  all 
attacks.  The  audience  shares  in  the  speaker's  or  writer's 
belief,  whatever  it  may  be,  and  they  will  be  thoroughly  in: 
sympathy  with  his  attempt  to  overthrow  those  who  attack 
him.  The  position  of  all  those  men  who  at  different: 
times  have  defended  long-accepted  views  against  so-called 
heretics  in  religion  and  science,  illustrates  the  persuasive 
value  of  a  subject  that  gives  at  the  outset  a  presumption 
in  favor  of  the  speaker  or  writer. 

Persuasion  Arising  from  the  Rhetorical  Treatment  of 
the  Subject. 

Even  the  rhetorical  treatment  that  a  writer  gives  his 
work  may  have  persuasive  value,  for  it  may  win  or  repel 
sympathy.  What  has  already  been  said  (p.  274)  of  the 
danger  there  sometimes  is  in  stating  at  the  beginning  oi 
an  argument  the  thesis  to  be  proved  true,  and  (p.  276)  of 
aiming  in  all  cases  at  elegance,  shows  this.  The  reader 
knows  that  under  certain  conditions  either  of  these  may 
repel  sympathy  for  the  writer  or  for  his  subject.  As  a 
rule,  however,  whatever  gives  clearness  and  force  to  Argu- 
mentation not  only  produces  in  the  hearer  or  reader 
readiness  to  accept  the  ideas  thus  clearly  and  forcibly 
stated,  but  also  wins  sympathy  for  the  arguer  by  creating 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  347 

a  belief  in  the  general  clearness  and  correctness  of  his 
[work.  This  produces  in  the  audience  a  disposition  to 
(accept  whatever  he  may  say.  Indeed  the  rough  rule  may 
|be  formulated,  that  the  rhetorical  laws  which  lead  to  clear- 
ness, force  and  elegance,  unless  they  contradict  some  of 
ithe  suggestions  about  Persuasion  already  given,  or  to  be 
given  in  this  chapter,  have  a  persuasive  effect  as  well. 


rsuasion    Arising    from    the    Application   Given  the 
Subject  for  the  Audience  in  Question. 


Rhetorical  treatment  is,  however,  but  one  of  four  pos- 
sible sources  of  persuasion.  The  third  and  fourth,  per- 
suasion arising  from  the  application  of  the  subject  to  the 
audience  in  question,  and  .persuasion  arising  from  quali- 
ties in  the  speaker  or  writer,  are  the  most  important. 

If  a  reader  turns  back  to  the  various  illustrations  of 
persuasion  in  the  introduction,  the  argument  proper  and 
the  peroration  given  in  the  last  chapter,  he  will  see  that 
in  all  three  the  speaker  or  writer  strove  to  put  before  his 
audience  some  motives  for  conduct.  By  "motive"  is 
meant  "whatever  occasions  or  induces  free  action  in 
man."1  Demosthenes  (p.  320)  begged  his  audience  to 
note  that  instant  action  meant  greater  likelihood  of  vic- 
tory. Beech er  (p.  321)  made  his  audience  see  that  the 
result  of  their  view  must  be  a  poor  market  for  their 
goods.  Hypereides  (p.  330)  moved  his  audience  to  tears. 
Isaeus  stirred  them  by  stories  of  their  country's  glory  in 
the  past.  A  speaker  or  writer  may,  then,  cause  an  audi- 
ence to  act,  that  is,  persuade  it,  in  two  ways.  He  may 
point  out  whatever  in  any  statement  proved  true  or  in 

1  Art  of  Discourse,  p.  171,  H.  N.  Day.     Scribner,  Armstrong  &  Co.,  1867. 


348  ARGUMENTA  TION. 


process  of  proof  he  feels  will  be  for  them  a  motive  for 
action;  or,  he  may  stir  their  emotions  so  strongly  with 
something  he  says  about  the  topic  that  they  will  seek  vent 
for  their  emotion  in  action  and  follow  willingly  his  bid- 
ding. Demosthenes  and  Beecher  did  the  first.  Hyper-] 
eides  and  Isaeus  the  second.  Evidently,  then,  he  who] 
wishes  to  be  persuasive  must  know  what  motives  for  con- 
duct exist  among  human  beings. 

The  Variety  in  Motives.     Their  Grades. 

This  is,  however,  no  easy  matter,  for  their  name  is 
legion.  The  illustrations  already  given  appealed  to  the] 
following  motives:  love  of  country;  easier  labor  in  one 
case  than  in  another;  desire  for  a  good  market,  for  manu- 
factures; love  of  fair  play,  etc.  Love  of,  and  pride  in, 
one's  self,  one's  family,  city,  state,  country;  social  and 
political  ambition;  avarice,  anger,  hatred,  fear,  charitable 
ness  ;  interest  in  education,  literature  or  the  fine  arts; 
admiration  of  courage,  perseverance,  coolness,  —  these 
are  all  possible  motives,  causes,  for  action.  The  firs£{ 
reason,  then,  why  the  study  of  motives  in  mankind  is  diffi- 
cnlt  is  their  number.  A  second  reason  has  appeared  even 
as  the  test  above  was  named — that  motives  are  not  all  of 
the  same  ra?ik. 

Suppose  that  a  man  is  induced  to  buy  a  lot  of  land,  no^ 
because  he  has  any  real  use  for  it,  but  because  he  know; 
that  a  man  he  dislikes  strongly  wishes  to  buy  it.  He  wil 
hardly  care  to  say  much  about  that  motive.  Suppose,  o 
the  other  hand,  that  he  buys  it  because  the  land,  in 
wretched  part  of  the  city,  has  been  long  used  by  poor  chil 
(iron  as  a  playground,  and  he  knows  that,  if  he  does  no 


ARG UMENTA  TION.  349 

buy  it,  the  land  will  be  sold  to  a  man  who,  by  placing 
buildings  on  it,  will  deprive  the  children  of  their  play- 
ground. Suppose  that  he  buys  it  even  at  some  incon- 
venience to  himself,  because  he  is  public-spirited  and  fond 
of  children.  Will  not  his  own  opinion  of  himself,  and 
particularly  the  opinion  of  him  among  his  fellow-citizens, 
vary  decidedly  under  the  differing  circumstances  ?  That 
is,  there  are  grades  in  the  motives  which  lead  to  action, 
—  from  those  which  regard  simply  the  good  of  the  indi- 
vidual, through  those  which  regard  the  good  of  some  class, 
to  those  which  regard  the  good  of  humanity.  That  ascend- 
ing scale  is  recognized  in  all  Christian  nations.  Certainly, 
then,  a  student  of  Persuasion  must  know  not  only  what 
motives  for  conduct  exist,  but  also  how  they  are  graded. 
It  is  not  likely  that  any  reader  of  this  book  will  speak  to 
an  audience  that  will  not  grade  motives  on  the  rough 
scale  given  above,  though  possibly  such  exist,  but  unfor- 
tunately among  Christian  peoples  the  grading  of  motives 
within  the  broad  divisions  given  varies  greatly.  What 
seems  very  important  to  one  may  seem  far  less  so  to  an- 
other. Even  in  the  same  country  the  grading  may  vary. 
For  instance,  love  of  the  arts,  of  literature,  of  science,  is 
much  greater  in  some  cities  than  in  others.  Any  man 
who  has  lived  in  the  newer  West  knows  that  in  some 
regions  the  greatest  sin  is  stealing  horses.  In  many 
places  the  desire  to  gain  money  dominates  every  other 
motive.  Consequently,  a  student  of  Persuasion  must 
know  not  only  what  in  general  are  the  motives  that  in 
human  beings  underlie  action  and  what  are  the  broad 
gradings  in  them  recognized  by  all  Christian  nations,  but 
also  what  grading  is  operative  in  the  particular  audience 
he  is  addressing.     All  this  makes  Persuasion  a  constant 


350  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

study  of  particular  cases,  instead  of,  as  in  Conviction,  a 
study  of  rules  that  hold  good  for  all  rational  beings.  It 
must  show,  too,  why  it  is  impossible  to  give  generally 
applicable  rules  for  Persuasion.  Breadth  of  experience, 
constant  study,  persistent  practice ;  these  are  the  essentials 
to  successful  persuasion.  Few  men  in  modern  times  have 
understood  persuasion  better  than  did  Lord  Erskine. 
Trained  first  in  the  navy,  later  in  the  army,  he  became  a 
lawyer  who  made  all  manner  of  acquaintances  at  assizes 
in  all  parts  of  England  and  Wales.  Gaining  thus  a  wide 
range  of  experience,  he  studied  his  fellow-men  enthu- 
siastically and  minutely,  and  constantly  applied  the 
results  of  his  study.  One  has  only  to  read  a  speech  of 
his  to  see  that  his  eye  was  always  on  the  faces  of  his 
audience.  Here  and  there,  from  a  change  in  wording,  a 
reiteration,  a  sudden  different  method  of  attack,  one 
learns  that  Erskine  saw  doubt  or  uncertainty  on  the  face 
of  some  juryman,  and  was  unwilling  to  move  on  until  all 
his  hearers  were  in  accord  with  him. 

Henry  Ward  Beecher,  also,  was  very  skillful  in  per- 
suasion. He  had  met  in  his  wide  experience  all  sorts 
and  conditions  of  men,  had  learned  to  read  their  faces 
and  figures  as  indices  of  their  mental  and  moral  powers  — 
an  important  faculty  for  the  man  who  wishes  to  be  per- 
suasive. This  wide  experience  gave  him  a  deep  knowledge 
of  the  causes  of  action,  good  and  bad,  in  his  fellow-men. 
When,  too,  he  had  a  difficult  audience  to  meet,  he  made 
before  he  spoke  careful  inquiries  about  its  nature  and 
tried  to  fit  his  treatment  of  his  subject  to  the  audience  in 
question.  As  a  result,  when  he  had  a  difficult  audience 
to  meet,  he  handled  it  triumphantly,  as  in  the  Liverpool 
speech. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  351 

Suggestions  as  to  Gaining  Persuasion. 

Though,  as  has  been  said,  from  the  very  nature  of 
persuasion  it  is  impossible  to  give  rules  so  universally 
operative  as  those  given  for  producing  conviction  in  an 
audience,  some  suggestions  that,  if  intelligently  observed, 
may  help  a  beginner  in  the  subject,  have  been  formulated. 
In  using  them,  however,  the  student  should  remember  that 
it  is  above  all  in  Persuasion  that  he  must  be  on  the  watch 
for  exceptions  which  test  the  rule. 

I.  Choose  the  highest  motive  to  which  the  audience  in 
question  will  respond.  —  A  student  should  remember  that 
the  motives  higher  in  excellence  and  purity  are  always  to 
be  preferred  to  the  lower.  If,  for  any  reason,  he  feels  it 
necessary  in  his  speech  or  article  to  appeal  to  motives  not 
of  the  highest  grade,  he  should  see  that  before  he  closes 
he  makes  them  lead  to  high  motives.  In  the  Liverpool 
speech,  Beecher  for  some  time  appealed  chiefly  to  the 
interest  of  his  audience  in  securing  a  good  market  for 
their  productions,  but  toward  the  end  of  his  address  he 
endeavored  to  make  his  audience  feel  that  the  arguments 
which  appealed  to  their  selfish  interests  also  appealed  to 
them  as  just  and  for  the  best  interests  of  humanity. 

A  little  reflection  will  show  the  reasons  for  the  sugges- 
tion which  heads  this  paragraph.  Few  men  are  willing  to 
admit  that  they  have  acted  for  motives  which  they  know 
their  fellow-beings  will  consider  low  or  mean.  Even  if 
they  suspect  that  their  real  motives  are  not  high,  they 
endeavor  to  convince  themselves  that  such  is  not  the  case. 
In  an  audience,  too,  where  each  man  knows  that  those 
about  him  see  what  moves  him  in  the  speaker's  words,  he 
is  usually  unwilling  to  act  on  motives  which  other  men 


352  ARGUMENTATION. 

may  consider  base.  Certain  motives  there  are,  also,  which 
all  Christian  men  regard  as  high  and  are  glad  to  have 
as  the  causes  of  their  acts  —  religious  feeling,  charity, 
devotion  to  one's  country,  etc.;  but  the  grading  of  the 
innumerable  motives  which  are  not  instantly  recognized 
as  of  the  first  order  varies  not  only  in  different  countries, 
different  states,  but  even  in  the  same  audience.  One 
man  may  feel  that  charity  begins  at  home,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  advancement  of  his  children  is  a  very  high 
motive ;  the  man  next  him  may  feel  that  care  of  the  poor 
of  a  city  is  an  even  greater  duty.  One  man  may  exalt 
his  duty  to  his  state  or  city  above  his  duty  to  his  country, 
and  his  neighbor  may  feel  that  the  country  is  more  im- 
portant than  all  else.  Since,  then,  men  yield  more  will- 
ingly to  high  than  to  low  motives,  and  since  unanimity  of 
action  is  more  easily  gained  when  the  highest  motives  are 
addressed,  this  corollary  to  the  rule  given  at  the  head 
of  the  section  may  be  formulated.  2.  The  larger  the 
audience,  the  higher  the  motives  to  which  an  appeal  may 
be  made. 

A  Third  Suggestion. 

When  a  man  who  recognizes  the  truth  of  these  two 
suggestions  is  considering  what  motives  he  can  best 
appeal  to  in  the  audience  he  is  to  meet,  he  will  ask  : 
What  is  the  general  habit  of  mind  of  the  audience,  is 
it  liberal  or  conservative,  religious  or  free-thinking,  etc.  ? 
He  must,  of  course,  in  seeking  motives  to  which  he  can 
appeal,  avoid  shocking  his  hearers  by  what  may  seem  to 
them  flippancy  of  tone,  or  boring  them  by  what  to  their 
liberal  minds  seems  stupidly  unprogressive.  Beecher, 
knowing  that  in  Englishmen  the  love  of  fair  play  is  a 


ARGUMENTATION.  353 

habit  of  mind,  appealed  to  this  love  in  the  opening  of  his 
Liverpool  speech  (p.  288).  In  like  manner  Junius,  in  his 
First  Letter  (p.  285),  states  at  the  beginning  the  frame  of 
mind  toward  the  governing  powers  habitual  with  most 
Englishmen,  and  then  proceeds,  by  detail  after  detail,  to 
show  how  that  frame  of  mind  has  been  "insulted  and 
abused."  A  speaker  must,  then,  (3)  decide  what  are  the 
usual  habits  of  mind  of  his  audience. 

A  Fourth  Suggestion. 

It  is  not,  however,  enough  to  know  that  high  motives 
may  best  be  appealed  to,  and  to  understand  what  is  the 
habitual  frame  of  mind  of  the  audience.  It  is  necessary, 
also,  to  decide  what  specific  motives  are  to  be  used. 
This  means  that  (4)  a  speaker  must  determine  what  are 
the  special  interests  of  his  audience  and  in  what  way  his 
subject  can  be  cojinccted  with  them.  This  suggestion  in 
regard  to  persuasion  is  the  most  widely  understood,  for 
almost  every  man  knows  that  a  chief  means  to  persuasion 
is  to  show  the  listener  that  the  topic  touches  some  interest 
of  his  so  vital  that  mere  recognition  of  the  connection  at 
once  leads  to  action.  Demosthenes  in  the  First  Olynthiac 
(p.  320)  pointed  out  to  his  hearers  that  their  idleness  and 
self-indulgence  would  mean  ultimately  a  struggle  for  the 
very  salvation  of  the  country.  Beecher  (p.  321)  pointed 
out  to  his  Liverpool  audience  that  freedom  for  slaves 
would  mean  a  better  market  for  their  goods.  In  the 
following  extract  from  the  same  speech  he  tries  to  show 
that  his  audience  were  really  responsible  for  the  evil  they 
condemned  :  — 

"  There  is  another  fact  that  I  wish  to  allude  to  —  not  for  the 
sake  of  reproach  or  blame,  but  by  way  of  claiming  your  more 


354  ARGUMENTATION. 

lenient  consideration  —  and  that  is,  that  slavery  was  entailed 
upon  us  by  your  action.  Against  the  earnest  protests  of  the 
colonists  the  then  government  of  Great  Britain  —  I  will  con- 
cede not  knowing  what  were  the  mischiefs — ignorantly,  but  in 
point  of  fact,  forced  slave  traffic  on  the  unwilling  colonists. 
[Great  uproar  and  confusion.  .  .  .  The  disturbance  having 
subsided — ]  I  was  going  to  ask  you,  suppose  a  child  is  born 
with  hereditary  disease ;  suppose  this  disease  was  entailed 
upon  him  by  parents  who  had  contracted  it  by  their  own 
misconduct,  would  it  be  fair  that  those  parents  that  had  brought 
into  the  world  the  diseased  child,  should  rail  at  the  child  because 
it  was  diseased  ?  ['  No,  no ! ']  Would  not  the  child  have  a 
right  to  turn  round  and  say  :  '  Father,  it  was  your  fault  that  I 
had  it,  and  you  ought  to  be  pleased  to  be  patient  with  my 
deficiencies.'  [Applause  and  hisses.  .  .  .  Much  disturbance.] 
I  do  not  ask  that  you  should  justify  slavery  in  us,  because  it 
was  wrong  in  you  two  hundred  years  ago  ;  but  having  igno- 
rantly been  the  means  of  fixing  it  upon  us.  now  that  we  are 
struggling  with  mortal  struggles  to  free  ourselves  from  it,  we 
have  a  right  to  your  tolerance,  your  patience,  and  charitable 
constructions."  1 

In  the  following  extract  from  the  speech  on  Removing 
the  Troops  from  Boston,  Chatham  sought  to  persuade  by 
pointing  out  to  his  audience  an  undeniable  interest  of 
theirs  in  the  case  :  — 

"This  resistance  to  your  arbitrary  system  of  taxation  might 
have  been  foreseen.  It  was  obvious  from  the  nature  of  things, 
and  of  mankind ;  and,  above  all,  from  the  Whiggish  spirit 
flourishing  in  that  country.  The  spirit  which  now  resists  your 
taxation  in  America  is  the  same  which  formerly  opposed  loans, 
benevolences,  and  ship-money  in  England  ;  the  same  spirit 
which  called  all  England  *  on  its  legs,'  and  by  the  Bill  of  Rights 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  175,  176. 


ARGUMENTATION.  355 

vindicated  the  English  Constitution  ;  the  same  spirit  which 
established  the  great,  fundamental,  essential  maxim  of  your 
liberties,  that  no  subject  of  England  shall  be  taxed  but  by  his  own 
consent." 1 

Study  of  Beecher's  Liverpool  address  will  show  in  it 
skillful  recognition  of  all  these  suggestions.  Beecher,  as 
has  been  pointed  out,  knew  that  it  is  safest  to  appeal  to 
high  motives,  and  that  when  motives  not  of  the  highest 
are  used,  they  must  lead  to  consideration  later  of  higher 
motives.  Hence  his  effort  to  make  the  audience  see  that 
what  would  give  them  the  best  markets  should  also  be 
favored  because  justice  demands  sympathy  with  the  North 
and  only  by  such  sympathy  can  the  two  great  nations 
work  together  against  the  powers  of  oppression  and  evil. 
He  planned  his  speech  on  the  idea  that  it  is  habitual  in  an 
English  audience  to  like  fair  play,  courage,  independence, 
good-nature.  He  asked  for  the  first  because  he  could 
offer  all  the  others  in  exchange.  He  constantly  sought  to 
show  the  audience  the  connection  between  his  subject 
and  their  personal  interests.  A  similar  careful  regard 
for  these  suggestions  appears  in  the  speeches  of  Demos- 
thenes, especially  the  Olynthiacs  and  Philippics. 

A  Fifth  Suggestion. 

When  an  audience  is,  for  any  reason,  uninterested  in  the 
speaker  or  his  subject,  when  the  topic  is  likely  to  be  dry, 
or  when  the  speaker  wishes  to  impress  an  idea  on  the 
hearer,  (5)  it  is  often  helpful  to  startle  the  audience.  It  is 
a  misapplication  of  this  widely  recognized  truth  that  leads 
to  sensational  sermons.     Demosthenes  was  very  fond  of 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  p.  15. 


356  ARG  UMENTA  TION. 

this  method  of  winning  the  attention  of  an  audience 
somewhat  unwilling  to  hear  him  because  they  dreaded  his 
fearless  statement  of  home  truths.  In  his  speeches  he 
often  made  statements  so  paradoxical  that  a  reader  is  at 
once  alert  to  see  how  anything  that  sounds  so  absurd  or 
impossible  could  have  been  true. 

"First,  I  say,  you  must  not  despond,  Athenians,  under  your 
present  circumstances,  wretched  as  they  are  ;  for  that  which  is 
worst  in  them  as  regards  the  past,  is  best  for  the  future.  What 
do  I  mean  ?  That  your  affairs  are  amiss,  men  of  Athens, 
because  you  do  nothing  which  is  needful ;  if,  notwithstanding 
you  performed  your  duties,  it  were  the  same,  there  would  be 
no  hope  of  amendment."  * 

Junius  also  made  use  of  this  method.  When,  in  his 
First  Letter,  after  a  terrible  arraignment  of  each  of  the 
chief  officers  of  the  Government,  but  only  by  the  name  of 
his  office,  he  throws  off,  as  he  closes,  all  indirectness,  and 
names  each  culprit,  his  daring  startles  a  reader  and  stamps 
his  ideas  indelibly  on  the  reader's  mind  :  — 

"If  by  the  immediate  interposition  of  Providence,  it  were 
(be)  possible  for  us  to  escape  a  crisis  so  full  of  terror  and 
despair,  posterity  will  not  believe  the  history  of  the  present 
times.  They  will  either  conclude  that  our  distresses  were 
imaginary,  or  that  we  had  the  good  fortune  to  be  governed  by 
men  of  acknowledged  integrity  and  wisdom.  They  will  not 
believe  it  possible  that  their  ancestors  could  have  survived,  or 
recovered  from  so  desperate  a  condition,  while  a  Duke  of 
Grafton  was  Prime  Minister,  a  Lord  North  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  a  Weymouth  and  a  Hillsborough  Secretaries  of 
State,  a  Granby  Commander-in-Chief,  and  a  Mansfield  chief 
criminal  judge  of  the  kingdom."  2 

1  Demosthenes,  Olynthiacs  and  Philippics,  p.  61.     Kennedy. 

2  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  pp.  58,  59. 


ARG  UMEN  TA  TION.  357 

The  Second  Chief  Means  of  Persuasion. 

To  show  an  audience  how  it  comports  with  their  inter- 
ests to  do  certain  acts  is  not,  however,  the  only  means  of 
persuasion.  The  Puritan  divine  of  the  early  colonial 
days  not  only  showed  his  audience  how  it  concerned  their 
interests  to  be  upright  members  of  society,  but  by  pic- 
tures of  the  personal  torture  they  would  hereafter  endure 
if  they  were  not  upright,  terrified  any  refractory  persons 
into  obedience.  To-day,  the  lawyer  trying  to  convince  a 
jury  that  some  anarchists  should  be  punished  for  throw- 
ing bombs,  not  only  points  out  how  it  touches  their  inter- 
ests as  citizens,  as  fathers,  that  such  outrages  should 
cease,  but  paints  vividly  for  them  the  scene  of  horror 
caused  by  the  bomb-throwing.  Each  man  tries  to  stir 
his  audience  to  emotion  so  strong  that  it  will  seek  relief 
in  action,  and,  since  the  act  suggested  by  the  speaker  is 
placed  most  vividly  before  the  hearers,  relief  in  that  par- 
ticular action.  Arousing  tlie  emotions,  the  passions,  excita- 
tion as  it  is  called,  is,  then,  a  strong  means  of  persuasion. 

Two  Means  of  Arousing  Emotion. 

A  person  may,  of  course,  arouse  emotions  in  his  fellows 
either  by  dwelling  on  matters  likely  to  arouse  them  in  his 
audience  or  by  showing  the  emotions  himself,  thus  mak- 
ing his  audience  from  sympathy  share  the  emotions  with 
him.  The  illustrations  just  given  show  the  first  method. 
Every  child  who  uses  tears  as  a  means  of  persuasion 
illustrates  the  second.  So  does  the  First  Oration  Against 
Catiline.  The  anger,  the  scorn  of  Cicero  were  so  infec- 
tious that  his  audience  shared  them  with  him^andjwere 
ready  to  do  his  bidding. 

UMIX/ERS1TY 


358  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

The  Danger  of  Showing  Strong  Emotion. 

For  persons  of  an  emotional  temperament  exhibition 
of  emotion  seems  doubtless  the  easiest  method  of  per- 
suading others,  but  it  is  very  dangerous.  The  expres- 
sion of  strong  emotion,  unless  the  hearers  are  in  full  sym- 
pathy with  it,  has,  especially  for  a  cultivated  audience, 
something  a  little  repellent  in  it:  it  is  too  uncontrolled. 
Unless,  then,  a  speaker  is  sure  that  he  can  carry  his 
audience  with  him  in  his  abandonment  to  his  feelings,  he 
runs  the  risk  of  repelling  instead  of  attracting.  More- 
over, frequent  dependence  on  this  method  of  persuasion 
weakens  its  effect.  An  audience,  seeing  that  the  speaker 
seems  to'  feel  readily  any  emotion,  begins  to  doubt  the 
genuineness  of  the  feeling  shown,  and  to  wonder  whether 
it  is  at  best  more  than  perhaps  unconscious  acting  of  a  high 
order.  If  it  decides  that  the  display  of  emotion  is  really 
but  acting,  the  man's  power  in  persuasion  is  gone.  An 
audience  may  admire  him  as  an  actor;  it  will  not  do 
his  bidding.  Just  here  a  student  should  note  this  differ- 
ence between  the  art  of  the  orator  and  the  art  of  the 
actor.  The  success  of  the  actor  is  complete  if  his  audi- 
ence feels :  "  This  is  the  perfect  simulation  of  anger, 
grief,  mirth,  misery."  For  the  orator  that  judgment  is 
the  doom  of  his  persuasive  work.  His  audience  must  not 
feel :  "  This  is  the  perfect  semblance  of  anger,  grief,  or 
mirth";  it  must  not  for  an  instant  consider  whether  it  is 
or  not.  Instead  of  that,  it  must  be  swept  out  of  its  self- 
control  into  participation  in  the  anger,  grief,  mirth,  or 
misery,  and  take  to  action  as  a  consequence.  The  orator 
has  a  special  act  in  mind  as  the  end  of  his  persuasion  ;  the 
actor  has  not. 


ARGUMENTATION.  359 

The  danger  of  a  free  display  of  emotion  is  shown  by 
the  following  words  of  Dr.  Phelps:  "  It  is  a  misfortune  to 
be  unable  to  suppress  tears.  I  once  knew  a  preacher 
whose  most  remarkable  quality  was  the  readiness  with 
which  he  wept.  He  once  shed  tears  in  exhorting  Chris- 
tians not  to  be  tardy  in  their  attendance  at  the  weekly 
meeting  of  the  church.  He  was  wonderfully  attractive 
on  a  first  hearing,  but  he  had  ten  brief  settlements."  1 

On  the  other  hand,  the  exhibition  of  strong  emotion  by 
a  nature  noted  for  its  self-control  has  great  persuasive 
force.     It  is  likely  to  sweep  all  before  it. 

It  may  be  said  that,  as  a  rule,  for  a  speaker  to  say  to 
himself,  "This  idea  gives  me  a  chance  for  a  stirring 
burst  of  emotion,  here  I  will  let  my  audience  see  how 
moved  I  am,"  has  in  it  an  element  of  the  theatric  and  sug- 
gests failure.  It  is  safer  in  planning  persuasive  work  to 
trust  to  emphasizing  motives  and  to  a  portrayal  of  the 
conditions  which  should  arouse  emotion  than  it  is  to 
depend  on  any  show  of  emotion  that  is  preconsidered. 
If  the  outburst  comes  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  unex- 
pected by  the  speaker  himself,  because  the  intensity  of 
his  feeling  overmasters  him,  it  will  probably  be  very  per- 
suasive. If  it  does  not  come  in  this  way,  it  will  probably 
have  a  note  of  insincerity  in  it,  and,  as  will  be  seen  in  a 
moment,  sincerity  is  an  essential  of  all  lastingly  persuasive 
work. 

Three  Qualities  Essential  in  any  Appeal  to  the 
Emotions. 

In  all  attempts  to  stir  the  emotions  three  qualities  are 
essential:  brevity,    vividness,   and   avoidance  of  anything 

1  Theory  of  Preaching,  p.  568,  Phelps. 


360  A  R  G  U ME  NT  A  TION. 

that  may  arouse  in  the  audience  feelings  hostile  to  the  end 
the  speaker  has  in  view.  Any  appeal  to  the  emotions  has, 
as  was  seen  above,  a  strong  element  of  the  dramatic 
in  it.  Any  student  of  the  stage  knows  that  two  of  the 
chief  essentials  of  dramatic  work  are  to  state  ideas  in  the 
briefest  form  that  will  convey  the  necessary  meaning  and 
to  give  all  possible  vividness  to  the  phrasing.  A  very 
powerful  aid  to  brevity  is  selection.  That  is,  a  dramatist 
does  not  give  all  the  details  of  the  life  of  his  characters, 
but  tells  his  story  by  showing  only  the  more  prominent 
and  essential  features  in  their  lives.  So,  too,  a  speaker 
or  a  writer  who  seeks  to  be  persuasive  should,  in  making 
any  direct  appeal  to  the  emotions,  give  only  the  essential 
and  striking  features  of  that  which  moves  him  or  is,  when 
pictured,  to  move  his  audience.  An  excellent  illustration 
of  this  suggestion  is  Callapine's  appeal  in  Tamburlaine  to 
his  keeper  to  flee  with  him :  — 

"  Then  shalt  thou  see  a  hundred  kings  and  more, 
Upon  their  knees,  all  bid  me  welcome  home. 
Amongst  so  many  crowns  of  burnished  gold, 
Choose  which  thou  wilt,  all  are  at  thy  command : 
A  thousand  galleys,  manned  with  Christian  slaves, 
I  freely  give  thee,  which  shall  cut  the  Straits, 
And  bring  armadoes  from  the  coasts  of  Spain, 
Fraughted  with  gold  of  rich  America : 
The  Grecian  virgins  shall  attend  on  thee, 
Skillful  in  music  and  in  amorous  lays :    ■ 
With  naked  negroes  shall  thy  coach  be  drawn, 
And,  as  thou  rid'st  in  triumph  through  the  streets, 
The  pavement  underneath  thy  chariot  wheels 
With  Turkey-carpets  shall  be  covered, 
And  cloth  of  arras  hung  about  the  walls, 
Fit  objects  for  thy  princely  eye  to  pierce : 
A  hundred  bassoes,  cloth'd  in  crimson  sill:, 


ARGUMENTATION.  361 

Shall  ride  before  thee  on  barbarian  steeds  ; 

And,  when  thou  goest,  a  golden  canopy 

Enchas'd  with  precious  stones,  which  shine  as  bright 

As  that  fair  veil  that  covers  all  the  world, 

When  Phoebus,  leaping  from  his  hemisphere, 

Descendeth  downward  to  th'  Antipodes  :  — 

And  more  than  this,  for  all  I  cannot  tell."  l 


A  Method  of  Gaining  Brevity  and  Vividness. 

Both  brevity  and  vividness  are   sometimes  gained  by 
leaving    a    description    incomplete    or    giving    only   just 
enough  details  to  set  the  imaginations  of  the  audience 
to  work.      This  is  very  effective  if  a  speaker  or  writer 
is  sure  that  his  audience  will  complete  the  description, 
fill  in  the  details,  just  as  he  desires.     Unless  he  can  be 
sure  of  this,  it  is  naturally  a  risky  method.     Clearly  it 
is  safer  for  the  speaker,  who  can  watch  the  faces  of  his 
ludience  and  see  whether  they  show  a  recognition  of  the 
full  significance  of  the  incomplete  description,  the  few 
letails,  than  it  is  for  the  writer,  who  never  sees  his  audi- 
ence.     A  very  successful  use  of  this  method  is  shown 
n  the  peroration  of  Lord  Erskine's  speech  in  behalf  of 
Lord  George  Gordon,  quoted   p.   331.     Erskine  did  not 
levelop  any  appeals  to  the  emotions  of  his  hearers,  but 
imply  suggested  to  their  imaginations  what  in  the  case 
f  Gordon  might  readily  be  developed  into  such  appeals, 
fe  knew  from  the  look  of  his  hearers  that  they  were 
ufficiently  in  sympathy  with  him  for  their  imaginations 
fill    out    his    suggestions.       The    advantages    of    this 
method  were  pointed  out  on  p.  331. 

1  The  Old  Dramatists,  Marlowe,  p.  46.     A.  Dyce.     Routledge. 


362  ARG UMKNTA  TION. 

The  Value  in  Persuasion  Oi<   Concreteness. 

The  greatest  aid  to  vividness  in  persuasion  is  concreteness 
of  statement.  All  that  was  said  on  p.  301  of  the  great 
value  in  evidence  of  such  concreteness  applies  equally 
well  here.  Anecdotes,  examples,  analogies,  illustrations 
of  all  kinds,  are  indispensable  in  excitation.  This  con- 
creteness of  statement  is  a  marked  characteristic  of  the 
addresses  of  the  great  "  revivalists  "  of  the  last  twenty- 
years.  Any  one  who  has  ever  heard  Mr.  Moody  speak 
knows  how  much  of  his  power  lies  in  the  emotion  caused 
by  his  vivid  stories,  dramatic  illustrations  of  his  meaning. 
One  of  the  most  effective  attacks  of  John  B.  Gough  on 
the  drink  habit  was  his  comparison  of  it  with  two  men 
idly  floating  in  a  boat  far  above  the  falls  of  Niagara. 
When  some  one  calls  from  the  shore  to  remind  them  that 
the  rapids  and  the  cataract  lie  below  them,  they  pay  noj 
attention.  They  are  too  sure  of  their  safe  position  to 
heed  any  such  cries.  The  current,  however,  though  they 
do  not  know  it,  is  bearing  them  steadily  toward  the  falls.] 
Soon  another  cry  comes  from  the  bank  :  "  Look  out,  look 
out,  the  rapids  are  below  you."  The  two  men,  busied! 
with  chat  and  laughter,  look  up  only  to  make  some  jestJ 
ing  reply,  and  drift  on.  Now  the  cry  comes  more  sharply 
from  the  shore,  and  the  men  seeing  the  anxiety  of  him 
who  hails  them  pull  a  little  on  their  oars,  but  not  with 
their  full  strength,  for  they  are  sure  that  they  can  turn 
back  if  they  wish.  Once  more  comes  the  cry,  this  time 
in  tones  of  great  terror.  The  men,  startled,  look  about] 
them  :  they  see  that  they  have  drifted,  they  press  upon 
the  oars,  but  all  in  vain.  The  boat  speeds  on.  They 
struggle  madly,  wasting^  half  their  strength  in  their  in-j 


A K  G  UMENTA  TION.  363 

creasing  terror.  All  the  while  the  cries  of  warning  and 
suggestions  for  help  come  to  them  from  the  shore,  yet 
all  their  struggling  is  in  vain.  They  realized  their  danger 
too  late.  Struggling,  screaming  with  terror,  they  are 
borne  into  the  rapids  and  over  the  falls.  Just  in  this  way 
do  men  fall  victims  to  the  drink  habit. 

After  the  battle  of  Bull  Run,  conflicting  rumors  steadily 
poured  into  New  York  city  as  to  the  real  condition,  the 
true  position  of  the  Northern  army,  and  the  effect  of 
the  defeat  on  the  government  at  Washington.  A  great 
crowd  that  in  its  anxiety,  its  uncertainty,  threatened  at 
any  moment  to  become  a  mob,  gathered  in  front  of  the 
Astor  House.  General  Garfield  was  urged  to  try  to 
quiet  this  crowd.  Stepping  out  on  a  balcony  of  the  Astor 
House,  he  stood  quietly,  with  raised  hat,  till  the  crowd 
of  men,  catching  sight  of  him  one  after  another  and 
hushing  their  neighbors  to  listen,  were  still  enough  for 
him  to  be  heard.  Then  he  said  :  "  God  reigns,  and  the 
Government  at  Washington  still  lives" — an  oration  in 
nine  words.  It  gave  the  anxious  crowd  just  the  informa- 
tion which  at  the  moment  was  vital,  —  that  there  was  still 
a  government  at  Washington  ;  and  it  supplied  them  with  a 
motive  of  the  highest  kind  for  action,  —  belief  that  the 
outcome  must  be  for  the  best  even  though  the  present  be 
dark,  since  all  was  in  God's  hands.  All  this  he  did  in 
nine  words  because  he  knew  intuitively  the  value  of  the 
concrete. 

The  Third  Essential  in  all  Appeals  to  the  Emotion. 

It  is,  above  all,  essential  in  excitation  so  to  manage  the 
material  that  it  shall  not  arouse  any  emotions  which  may 
counteract  those  which  the  speaker  desires  to  bring  into 


364  ARG UMENTA  TION. 

action.  Note  how  skillfully  Demosthenes  avoided  thi< 
difficulty  in  the  following  extract  from  the  First  Philippic 
He  wished  to  make  his  audience  feel  that  Philip  owed  his 
success  not  so  much  to  his  own  genius  as  to  their  pasl 
indolence.  In  order  to  make  this  clear,  he  must  show 
how,  step  by  step,  Philip  had  gained  his  power,  and  the 
proportions  to  which  it  had  grown.  But  he  must  be  or 
his  guard  constantly  lest  insistence  on  this  growing  great- 
ness and  vast  power  should  so  terrify  the  Athenians  that 
they  should  say  :  "  Remonstrance  is  useless.  Let  us  make 
the  best  terms  we  can  since  we  have  thrown  away  our 
chances":  — 

"  First  I  say,  you  must  not  despond,  Athenians,  under  yom 
present  circumstances,  wretched  as  they  are,  for  that  which  is 
worst  in  them  as  regards  the  past,  is  best  for  the  future.  Whal 
do  I  mean  ?  That  your  affairs  are  amiss,  men  of  Athens, 
because  you  do  nothing  which  is  needful ;  if,  notwithstanding 
you  performed  your  duties,  it  were  the  same,  there  would  be  no 
hope  of  amendment. 

"  Consider  next,  what  you  know  by  report,  and  men  of  expe- 
rience remember ;  how  vast  a  power  the  Lacedaemonians  had 
not  long  ago,  yet  how  nobly  and  becomingly  you  consulted  the 
dignity  of  Athens,  and  undertook  the  war  against  them  for  the 
rights  of  Greece.  Why  do  I  mention  this  ?  To  show  and  con- 
vince you,  Athenians,  that  nothing,  if  you  take  precaution,  is  to 
be  feared,  nothing,  if  you  are  negligent,  goes  as  you  desire. 
Take  for  examples  the  strength  of  the  Lacedaemonians  then, 
which  you  overcame  by  attention  to  your  duties,  and  the 
insolence  of  this  man  now,  by  which  through  neglect  of  our 
interests  we  are  confounded.  But  if  any  among  you,  Athenians, 
deem  Philip  hard  to  be  conquered,  looking  at  the  magnitude  of 
his  existing  power,  and  the  loss  by  us  of  all  our  strongholds, 
they  reason  rightly,  but  should  reflect,  that  once  we  held  Pydna 


AKGUMENTATWX.  365 

and  Potidaea  and  Methone  and  all  the  region  round  about  as 
our  own,  and  many  of  the  nations  now  leagued  with  him  were 
independent  and  free,  and  preferred  our  friendship  to  his.  Had 
Philip  then  taken  it  into  his  head,  that  it  was  difficult  to  con- 
tend with  Athens,  when  she  had  so  many  fortresses  to  infest 
his  country,  and  he  was  destitute  of  allies,  nothing  that  he  has 
accomplished  would  he  have  undertaken,  and  never  would  he 
have  acquired  so  large  a  dominion.  But  he  saw  well,  Athenians, 
that  all  these  places  are  the  open  prizes  of  war,  that  the  posses- 
sions of  the  absent  naturally  belong  to  the  present,  those  of  the 
remiss  to  them  that  will  venture  and  toil.  Acting  on  such  prin- 
ciple, he  has  won  everything  and  keeps  it,  either  by  way  of 
conquest,  or  by  friendly  attachment  and  alliance ;  for  all  men 
will  side  with  and  respect  those,  whom  they  see  prepared  and 
willing  to  make  proper  exertion.  If  you,  Athenians,  will  adopt 
this  principle  now,  though  you  did  not  before,  and  every  man, 
where  he  can  and  ought  to  give  his  service  to  the  state,  be 
ready  to  give  it  without  excuse,  the  wealthy  to  contribute,  the 
able-bodied  to  enlist ;  in  a  word,  plainly,  if  you  will  become 
your  own  masters,  and  cease  each  expecting  to  do  nothing 
himself,  while  his  neighbor  does  everything  for  him,  you  shall 
then  with  heaven's  permission  recover  your  own,  and  get  back 
what  has  been  frittered  away,  and  chastise  Philip.  Do  not 
imagine,  that  his  empire  is  everlastingly  secured  to  him  as  a 
god.  There  are  who  hate  and  fear  and  envy  him,  Athenians, 
even  among  those  who  seem  most  friendly;  and  all  feelings  that 
are  in  other  men  belong,  we  may  assume,  to  his  confederates. 
But  now  they  are  all  cowed,  having  no  refuge  through  your 
tardiness  and  indolence,  which  I  say  you  must  abandon  forth- 
with. For  you  see,  Athenians,  the  case,  to  what  pitch  of  arro- 
gance the  man  has  advanced,  who  leaves  you  not  even  the 
choice  of  action  or  inaction,  but  threatens  and  uses  (they  say) 
outrageous  language,  and,  unable  to  rest  in  possession  of  his 
conquests,  continually  widens  their  circle,  and,  while  we  dally 
and  delay,  throws  his  net  all  around  us.     When  then,  Athenians, 


366  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

when  will  ye  act  as  becomes  you  ?  In  what  event  ?  In  that  of 
necessity  I  suppose.  And  how  should  we  regard  the  events 
happening  now  ?  Methinks,  to  freemen  the  strongest  necessity 
is  the  disgrace  of  their  condition.  Or  tell  me,  do  ye  like  walk- 
ing about  and  asking  one  another :  —  Is  there  any  news  ?  Why, 
could  there  be  greater  news  than  a  man  of  Macedonia  subduing 
Athenians,  and  directing  the  affairs  of  Greece  ?  Is  Philip  dead? 
No,  but  he  is  sick.  And  what  matters  it  to  you  ?  Should  any- 
thing befall  this  man,  you  will  soon  create  another  Philip,  if 
you  attend  to  business  thus.  For  even  he  has  been  exalted 
not  so  much  by  his  own  strength,  as  by  our  negligence."  l 

The  Order  in  Persuasion. 

The  exact  nature  of  the  task  a  speaker  or  writer  sets 
himself  will,  of  course,  affect  the  order  of  his  persuasive 
work.  When  a  man  wishes  simply  to  persuade  people  to 
continue  in  a  course  of  action,  or  to  carry  out  a  purpose 
already  formed,  he  may  arrange  his  persuasive  work  in  a 
climactic  order,  for  even  a  very  slight  amount  of  persua- 
sion will  probably  move  his  audience  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, and  he  will  leave  them  stirred  to  immediate  action 
by  his  final  effort.  If,  however,  he  wishes  to  urge  men 
to  give  up  doing  something  to  which  they  have  become 
accustomed,  or  a  purpose  already  well  established  in  their 
minds,  he  must  naturally,  as  in  the  case  of  refuting  long- 
established  ideas,  bring  forward  his  strongest  material 
first.  When  he  has  stirred  his  audience  by  his  first 
strong  appeal  he  can  maintain  his  effect  with  other 
appeals,  each  of  which  would  not  have  been  strong  enough, 
if  given  alone  at  the  outset,  to  rouse  the  audience.  The 
rules  for  order  in  persuasion  are  practically,  then,  those 
given  for  order  in  refutation  (p.  1 1 1). 

1  Demosthenes,  Olynthiacs  and  Philippics,  pp.  61-63.     Kennedy. 


ARGUMENTATION.  367 

Persuasion  Arising  from    Qualities  in  the  Speaker  or 

Writer. 

Without  certain  qualities  no  man  can  hope  for  lasting 
success  in  Persuasion.  //  is  indispensable  in  Persuasion 
that  a  speaker  or  zvriter  should  be  sincere,  tactful,  skillful. 
The  probable  failure  of  the  man  who  feels  emotion  readily, 
and  yields  to  it  completely,  comes,  as  was-  pointed  out  on 
p.  358,  from  a  doubt  of  his  sincerity.  For  a  time  the 
demagogue  working  for  his  own  ends,  the  reformer  who 
seeks  his  own  advancement,  the  preacher  who  is  really 
ambitious  and  self-seeking,  may  palm  themselves  off  on 
their  audience  for  better  men  than  they  are,  but  sooner  or 
later  their  insincerity  becomes  known.  Never  afterwards, 
with  most  men,  will  any  of  the  old-time  power  over  audi- 
ences be  theirs.  Never  should  anything  in  voice,  gesture, 
bearing,  or  diction  suggest  to  an  audience  that  the  speaker 
is  thinking  more  of  himself,  or  his  presentation  of  his 
subject,  than  of  the  message  he  has  to  convey.  This  is 
the  reason  why  elegance  of  diction  is  sometimes  danger- 
ous. Rough-and-ready  men,  who  have  met  together  to 
listen  to  an  address  on  a  subject  that  cries  for  redress, 
may  feel  that  he  who  has  plainly  stayed  to  select  and  to 
polish  his  phrases  cannot  recognize  as  he  should  the  deep 
significance  of  the  subject  he  is  treating.  To  them  a  few 
-ough,  ill-selected,  but  sincere  words,  straight  from  the 
leart  of  a  speaker  who  is  stirred  through  and  through 
with  the  importance  of  his  words,  will  be  far  more  valu- 
able and  moving.  Avoid,  of  course,  artificiality  of  style. 
There  is  much  that  is  wise,  much  that  is  really  thoughtful 
n  John  Lyly's  Elizabethan  novel,  Euphues,  The  Anatomie 
>f  Wit,  but  it  is  hard  to  give  serious  consideration  to  the 


368  ARGUMENTA  TION. 

thought  of  these  euphuistic  sentences,  which  have  been  filed 
and  polished  into  conformity  to  a  style  so  artificial  that  it 
seems  almost  impossible  that  the  thought  could  have 
been  at  all  important  to  the  writer.  The  vocabulary  of  a 
speaker  should  be  rich,  but  his  phrases  simple.  He 
should  find  the  expression  that  is  forcible  because  it  is 
clear  and  picturesque,  not  because  it  is  merely  unusual  or 
fantastic.  Avoid  anything  that  suggests  physical  or  intel- 
lectual posing. 

Much  is  said  nowadays  of  personal  magnetism  in 
speakers  or  actors.  Doubtless  there  is  an  inborn  quality 
in  some  men  which,  the  moment  they  appear  on  the  stage 
or  the  platform,  establishes  a  bond  of  sympathy  between 
them  and  their  audiences,  but  it  would  be  difficult  to 
determine  how  much  of  this  is  inborn  and  how  much 
comes  from  the  self-reliance  of  the  speaker,  the  confidence 
of  the  audience,  caused  by  a  speaker's  thorough  knowledge 
of  his  subject  and  of  the  arts  of  conviction  and  persuasion, 
his  evident  thorough  absorption  in  his  subject,  and  his 
reputation  for  a  sincere  treatment  of  whatever  he  touches. 
Certainly,  unless  the  apparent  belief  of  a  man  in  the  truth 
of  his  cause  is  genuine  he  cannot  often  appeal  to  his  audi- 
ence with  an  air  of  complete  expectance  of  the  success  of 
his  plea.  Yet  he  who  calls  hesitatingly  on  his  hearers,  who 
seems  to  feel  that  they  may  not  respond,  will  never  take 
them  with  him.  Even  the  man  who  is  able  to  assume 
this  air  when  he  has  not  the  feeling  is  likely  to  be 
detected  in  his  fraud.  An  experience  of  Lord  Erskine's 
illustrates  these  statements.  In  his  defense  of  Lord 
George  Gordon  he  quoted  his  client's  words  to  the  King : 
"  The  multitude  pretend  to  be  perpetrating  these  acts 
under  the  authority  of  the  Protestant  petition  ;  I  assure 


A  R  G  UMENTA  TION.  369 

your  majesty  they  are  not  the  Protestant  Association,  and 
I  shall  be  glad  to  be  of  any  service  in  suppressing  them," 
and  then,  carried  out  of  himself  by  the  strength  of  his 
feelings,  he  cried  :  "  I  say,  by  God,  that  man  is  a  ruffian 
who  shall  after  this  presume  to  build  upon  such  honest, 
artless  conduct,  as  an  evidence  of  guilt."  According  to 
Professor  Goodrich,  "The  effect  produced  on  the  jury  and 
spectators  by  this  sudden  burst  of  feeling,  is  represented 
by  eye-witnesses  to  have  been  such  as  to  baffle  all  powers 
of  description.  It  was  wholly  unpremeditated,  the  instan- 
taneous result  of  that  sympathy  which  exists  between  a 
successful  speaker  and  his  audience.  In  uttering  this 
appeal  to  his  Maker,  Mr.  Erskine's  tone  was  one  of  awe 
and  deep  reverence,  without  the  slightest  approach  toward 
the  profane  use  of  the  words,  but  giving  them  all  the 
solemnity  of  a  judicial  oath.  The  magic  of  his  eye,  ges- 
ture, and  countenance  beaming  with  emotion,  completed 
the  impression,  and  made  it  irresistible.  It  was  a  thing 
which  a  man  could  do  but  once  in  his  life.  Mr.  Erskine 
attempted  it  again  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  utterly 
failed."1  That  second  attempt  was  a  failure  because  it 
was  not  wholly  the  result  of  the  emotion  of  the  moment, 
absolutely  sincere,  but  was  a  premeditated  dramatic  effect. 
The  audience  felt  this,  and  the  desired  effect  was  lost. 

A  student  should  remember,  also,  how  important  in 
persuasion  is  a  man's  reputat'on.  Though  there  be  no 
change  of  party,  no  previously  expressed  views  that  con- 
tradict those  developed  by  the  speaker,  and  so  throw 
doubt  on  his  sincerity,  the  man  may  be  noted  as  a 
humorist.  Unless  his  subject  is  such  that  he  can  per- 
suade   through    laughter   his    work  will    be    hard.      The 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern),  p.  143,  and  note. 


370  ARGUMENTATION. 

audience  is  accustomed  to  laugh  with  or  at  him  and  will  find 
it  difficult  to  believe  that  he  is  really  in  earnest  in  serious 
work.  Sydney  Smith  used  to  complain  that  his  audience 
smiled  at  parts  of  his  sermons  as  witty  where  nothing 
was  farther  from  his  thoughts  than  to  provide  amusement. 
One  has  only  to  study  the  introductions,  the  perorations 
of  the  great  speeches  from  Demosthenes  to  Webster,  to 
see  how  earnestly,  how  insistently  the  orators  have 
impressed  on  their  audiences  their  sincerity  in  their 
work  :  one  has  but  to  study  the  wrecked  careers  among 
orators  to  realize  that  sincerity  is  the  chief  essential  in 
persuasion.     Without  it  all  else  may  go  for  naught. 

Summary. 

In  Persuasion,  then,  a  man  should  avoid  anything  that 
means  or  suggests  self-consciousness.  He  should  feel 
the  subject  so  intensely  that  the  desire  to  share  with  his 
audience  his  ideas  and  his  feelings  in  regard  to  it  domi- 
nates every  other  idea.  He  should  regard  himself  simply 
as  an  instrument  for  transmitting  the  important  idea  to 
the  audience  in  question,  yet  a  thinking  instrument  that 
takes  advantage  of  everything  in  its  favor,  skillfully  does 
away  with  what  is  not,  and  changes  its  methods  as  the 
needs  of  the  moment  demand.  Such  absorption  in  a 
subject  is  possible  only  for  the  speaker  or  writer  who 
sincerely  believes  what  he  is  saying. 

The  Value  of  Tact  in  Persuasion. 

Tact  is  another  great  requisite  —  the  ability  to  do  or  to 
say  the  right  thing  at  the  right  moment,  or,  perhaps 
better,  to  avoid  doing  or    saying  the  wrong   thing.     It 


ARGUMENTATION.  371 

implies  self-control,  absence  of  self-assertion,  constant 
study  of  men  and  manners,  and  a  readiness  to  do  or  say 
that  which  shall  put  other  men  at  their  ease.  Tact  marks 
the  speeches  of  Demosthenes  ;  it  is  lacking  in  the  speech 
of  Brutus  over  Caesar's  body  ;  it  was  one  of  the  chief 
causes  of  the  success  of  Beecher  at  Liverpool. 

The  Value  of  Skill  in  Persuasion. 

Skill,  the  third  great  requisite,  is  broadly  inclusive  : 
it  signifies  a  knowledge  of  all  the  means  and  methods 
that  go  to  make  effective  persuasion,  and  an  intelligent 
use  of  them  that  is  able  to  distinguish  between  the 
ninety-nine  cases  when  the  rule  given  applies  and  the 
hundredth  when  it  may  best  be  broken.  This  ability  is 
to  be  gained  only  by  constant,  thoughtful,  critical  appli- 
cation to  audiences  of  very  different  kinds  of  the  sugges- 
tions as  to  persuasion. 

A  Difference  between  Conviction  and  Persuasion. 

Throughout  the  first  six  chapters  of  this  book  it  was 
possible,  in  making  suggestions  as  to  Argumentation,  to 
address  rather  the  writer  than  the  speaker.  This  was 
true  because  the  word  writer  may  include,  as  far  as 
convincingness  is  concerned,  any  speaker  who,  before  he 
meets  his  audience,  writes  out  his  arguments.  These  men 
must  obey  the  same  laws  in  regard  to  analysis,  evidence, 
and  rhetoric.  Even  the  speaker  who  does  not  write  out, 
but  simply  plans  his  work  in  his  mind,  must  either  in 
this  preparation  or  in  the  delivery  obey  all  these  rules. 
The  man  called  on  to  speak  extemporaneously  is,  of 
course,  at  a  disadvantage,  since  he  has  no  time  in  which 


372  ARGUMENTATION. 

to  plan  his  work,  and  unless  he  has  previously  carefully 
trained  himself  in  methods  of  conviction  he  may  do 
poorly.  But  the  laws  he  should  regard  are  the  same. 
When,  however,  an  attempt  is  made  to  explain  by  what 
means  an  audience  may  be  persuaded,  it  is  necessary  to 
address  the  speaker  rather  than  the  writer.  This  is  true 
because  a  man,  in  order  to  persuade  to  the  best  advantage, 
must  be  face  to  face  with  his  audience.  The  man  who 
prints  his  argument  addresses  an  audience  he  never  sees, 
and  cannot,  therefore,  apply  to  it  those  suggestions  as 
to  Persuasion  which  require  that  the  audience  and  the 
arguer  should  see  each  other.  No  man  who  is  to  speak 
to  an  audience  can  give  his  final  persuasive  touches  to 
his  speech  until  he  is  face  to  face  with  his  audience 
and  sees  what  is  its  mood  toward  him  and  his  subject, 
whether  it  is  just  the  audience  he  expected  to  find.  If 
the  conditions  attending  his  speech  are  not  just  those  he 
expected,  he  must  change  the  persuasive  methods  which 
he  had  planned  to  use.  If,  before  any  audience,  he  clings 
to  the  persuasive  methods  he  had  prepared  he  may  lose 
admirable  opportunities  which  some  unexpected  action  on 
their  part  may  offer.  The  conditions  surrounding  a  writer, 
his  comparative  leisure  for  developing  his  work,  his  oppor- 
tunities for  planning  carefully  and  readjusting  his  work, 
are  those  favorable  for  the  study  of  convincingness,  but  the 
conditions  of  the  speaker,  face  to  face  with  his  audience, 
are  the  best  for  persuasive  work.  This  very  fact  is  the 
justification  of  the  plan  of  this  book.  By  study  in  written 
work  of  the  rules  of  Conviction  a  beginner  in  Argumen- 
tation gains  most  quickly  the  power  to  convince  his  fellow- 
men,  and  he  is,  therefore,  advised  to  write  first  with  only 
convincingness  in  view.     Even  as  he  gains  this  he  learns 


ARGUMENTATION.  373 

the  persuasiveness  that  may  come  from  the  nature  of  the 
subject  itself,  and  from  a  good  rhetorical  treatment  of  it. 
When  he  has  mastered  these  matters  he  can  try  his  hand 
at  writing  arguments  on  the  same  subject  fitted  for  two 
widely  differing  audiences,  whose  characteristics  he  him- 
self knows  accurately  or  has  had  carefully  explained  to 
him.  Such  work  will  give  him  a  growing  skill  in  the 
application  of  the  suggestions  already  given  as  to  the 
third  and  fourth  sources  of  Persuasion.  These  pieces  of 
Argumentation  he  should,  if  possible,  deliver  to  the 
audiences  for  which  they  are  planned,  that  he  may  see  the 
success  or  failure  of  his  persuasive  work,  and  may  learn 
to  use  those  suggestions  for  persuasiveness  which  can  be 
applied  only  when  the  speaker  is  face  to  face  with  his 
audience.  Certainly,  only  by  constant  speaking  before 
audiences  of  very  different  kinds,  and  careful  considera- 
tion of  the  successes  and  the  failures  made,  can  a  student 
become  a  master  of  Persuasion.  He  will,  however,  save 
himself  many  mortifying  experiences,  many  failures,  if  by 
the  method  suggested,  by  writing  out  his  arguments,  he 
learns  to  handle  Conviction  well,  and  comes  to  under- 
stand the  rudiments  of  Persuasion. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

SOME    FINAL    SUGGESTIONS. 

A  BEGINNER  in  Argumentation  who  has  carefully 
read  and  applied  the  suggestions  given  in  this  book 
should  understand  clearly  what  Conviction  and  Persuasion 
are.  He  should,  too,  when  he  has  a  question  .to  discuss 
know  (i)  what  the  question  means  ;  (2)  what  he  believes 
about  it,  and  why  ;  (3)  how  he  is  going  to  state  his  case 
so  as  to  (a)  convince  and  (b)  persuade.  Chapter  II.  should 
have  taught  him  (1);  Chapters  III.  and  IV.  and  V.  should 
have  helped  him  to  understand  (2);  Chapters  III.,  V.  and 
VI.  should  have  settled  (3)  (a)  for  him  ;  and  Chapters 
VI.  and  VII.  should  have  made  (3)  (b)  clear  to  him.  He 
should  see  why  it  is  a  very  arbitrary  proceeding  when 
rhetoricians  separate  Conviction  and  Persuasion  in  treat- 
ing Argumentation,  since  what  leads  to  one  may,  in  some 
cases,  as  was  pointed  out  on  pp.  345-6,  lead  to  the  other. 
He  should  understand  why,  though  the  rules  that  produce 
convincingness  may  be  learned  in  a  short  time,  study  of 
Persuasion  is  a  life-work.  From  the  chapter  on  Evidence 
he  should  have  learned  the  relation  of  Logic  to  Argumen- 
tation ;  from  the  same  chapter  the  importance  of  evidence 
in  all  such  work  ;  from  Chapters  III.  and  VI.,  the  work  of 
Rhetoric  in  Argumentation  ;  and  from  the  last  two  chap- 
ters the  work  of  Persuasion.  If  he  does  understand  all 
this,  he  is  able  to  do  good  work  in  Argumentation  that  will 
steadily  grow  better. 


ARGUMENTA  TION.  375 


Three  Final  Suggestions. 


Two  or  three  final  suggestions  of  a  general  kind  may 
be  helpful.  A  student  should  choose  for  his  work  in  foren- 
sics  only  subjects  in  which  he  is  really  interested.  On 
other  subjects  his  work  is  sure  to  be  perfunctory,  and 
because  of  his  lack  of  real  interest  in  his  work  his  attempts 
at  persuasion  will  lack  sincerity. 

A  college  student  should,  if  possible,  find  his  topics  in 
courses  which  he  has  taken,  for  the  subject-matter  of  such 
questions  will  not  force  him  to  do  so  much  research  work 
as  topics  entirely  fresh  to  the  student  would  demand.  As 
a  result  he  can  give  nearly  all  his  attention  to  the  prepara- 
tion of  his  matter. 

Above  ally  a  beginner  in  Argumentation  should  not  let 
himself  be  led  astray  by  that  "  ignis  fatuus"  of  the  weary  or 
lazy  student,  the  idea  that  because  in  his  first  careful  study 
of  the  rules  of  any  art  lie  finds  his  work  hampered  by  them, 
he  is  losing  his  individuality  arid  may  even  work  less  well 
after  his  study  than  before.  Every  art  has  its  laws,  and 
they  must  be  mastered  by  any  man  who  wishes  to  excel 
in  the  particular  art.  There  is  undoubtedly  a  stage  in 
learning  and  applying  such  laws  when,  for  a  time,  the 
student  feels  hampered  by  warnings  for  and  against  this 
or  that,  and  longs  for  his  old  freedom  of  movement  which 
certainly  brought  him  larger  results.  Gradually,  however, 
as  the  student  works,  the  laws  that  were  at  first  so 
hampering  become  a  matter  of  course.  A  writer,  for 
instance,  comes  to  do  instinctively  what  at  first  he  did 
with  much  labor.  When  this  stage  in  his  work  is  reached, 
if  he  compares  his  result  with  the  results  of  his  labor 
before  he  studied  at  all,  he  will  see  his  great  gain.     Cer- 


376  ARGUMENTA  T/OJV. 

tainly,  only  when  a  man  has  so  thoroughly  learned  his  art 
that  he  seems  to  work  instinctively  in  the  right  way,  can 
he  be  said  to  be  master  of  it.  None  of  the  great  orators 
has  gained  his  mastery  without  infinite  pains.  The 
beginner  in  Argumentation,  to  whom  his  struggle  with 
the  rudimentary  laws  and  the  suggestions  for  Persuasion 
and  Conviction  seems  dry  and  unnecessary,  should  ponder 
these  words  of  Demosthenes:  — 

"  It  seems  to  me  far  more  natural  that  a  man  engaged  in 
composing  political  discourses,  unperishable  memorials  of  his 
power,  should  neglect  not  even  the  smallest  detail,  than  that 
the  generation  of  painters  and  sculptors,  who  are  darkly  show- 
ing forth  their  manual  tact  and  toil  in  corruptible  material, 
should  exhaust  the  refinements  of  their  art  on  the  veins,  on  the 
feathers,  on  the  down  of  the  lip,  and  the  like  niceties."  l 

1  Attic  Orators,  vol.  I,  p.  lxxv.     Jebb. 


APPENDIX. 


The  following  briefs  may  be  useful  for  criticism  by  students 
when  a  class  is  studying  Brief-Drawing  and  Evj^tenSfeC 

Brief  I. 

V 

Should  Capital  Punishment  be  abolished  ? 

Introduction. 

I.    By  capital  punishment  is  meant  punishment  by  death, 
by  any  method,  for  murder. 

II.    By  murder  is  meant  the  willful  and  malicious  destruction 
of  human  life. 

Brief  Proper. 

I.    Capital  punishment  should  not  be  abolished,  for l 

A.  It  makes  the  conviction  of  the  innocent  less  likely, 
for 

i.    When  death  is  the  penalty  it  leads  to  the  most 
exact  and  critical  examination  of  evidence. 

2.  It  gives  to  the  accused  the  full  benefit  of  every 
doubt. 

3.  It  lays  the  strongest  hold  on  the  conscience  and 
sympathy  of  both  court  and  witnesses. 

B.  The  argument  that  capital  punishment  should  be 
abolished  on  account  of  the  fallibility  of  human 
courts  is  inconsistent,  for 

1  New  Englander,  vol.  I,  p.  28. 


378  APPENDIX. 

i.  All  laws  are  administered  by  fallible  human 
courts,  and  by  this  reasoning  it  would  follow  thai 
all  laws  ought  to  be  abolished. 

C.  The  argument  that  capital  punishment  should  bd 
abolished  is  unreasonable,  for 

i.    All  severe  penalties,  such  as  life  imprisonment,  are 

without  a  remedy,  for 

(a)    Even  though  the  criminal  is  pardoned  finally, 
the  best  years  of  his  life  have  been  wasted. 
2.    It  is  not  the  object  of  courts  of  justice  to  inflict 

remediable  penalties. 

D.  The  lives  of  thousands  are  preserved  by  the  execu- 
tion of  a  few,  for  l 

i.    By  the  destruction  of  leaders  of  violent  mobs,  it 
discourages  the  tendency  to  instigate  such  mobs. 
2.    It  suppresses  the  insurrection  of  anarchists. 

E.  The  statement  that  capital  punishment  is  the 
punishing  of  one  murder  by  the  commission  of 
another  is  untrue,  for 

i.  Punishment  by  death  is  not  attended  by  malicious] 
and  revengeful  designs,  for 

(a)    To  say  that  it  is,  is  to  deny  all  law  and  all 
forms  of  justice. 

F.  Places  where  the  law  of  capital  punishment  does 
not  exist  become  a  refuge  for  murderers,  for 

i.  Criminals  desire  the  least  possible  punishment] 
for  their  crimes,  as  is  shown  by  the  care  they  take 
to  escape  detection,  so  would  naturally  plan  to 
commit  crimes  in  a  place  where  the  least  penaltd 
is  inflicted. 

2.  Authentic  instances  exist  of  murderers  deliberately 
decoying  their  victims  into  jurisdictions  where  thJ 
death  penalty  does  not  prevail.2 


1  New  Englander,  vol.  I,  p.  28. 

2  Eoritm,  vol.  Ill,  p.  381. 


APPENDIX.  379 

G.    The  fact  that  some  jurors  fail  to  bring  in  a,  verdict 
of  guilty  for  murder  when  capital  punishment  is  the 
penalty  should  not  be  considered,  for 
i.    The  poor  administration  of  a  law  should  not  con- 
demn the  law  itself. 
H.    The  objection  that  there  is  no  time  for  repentance 
for  the  criminal  does  not  hold,  for 
i.    Sufficient  time  is  given  between  the  arrest,  con- 
viction and  final  death  for  every  religious  duty.1 

2.  The  disposition  to  delay  repentance  will  be  the 
same  in  prison  as  out. 

3.  The  shorter  the  time,  and  the  greater  and  more 
pressing  the  need  for  repentance,  the  sooner  is 
the  criminal  likely  to  repent. 

/    Life  imprisonment  is  an  inadequate  substitute,  for 

1.  There  is  no  higher  penalty  when  the  crime  has 
been  repeated  by 

(a)    Murdering  prison  guards  and  warden. 

2.  It  gives  opportunities  for  escape,  for 

(a)  Means  are  furnished  by  cooperative  work  by 
1)  Supplying  tools,    2)  causing  the  removal  of 

criminals  from  their  cells  to  the  prison  work- 
house. 

(b)  There  is  an  opportunity  for  criminals  to  make 
plans  by  communication  with  each  other. 

3.  The  possibilities  for  pardon  are  very  great,  for 
(a)  Statistics  .prove  that  within  seven  years  a  man 

has  sixty-three  chances  out  of  one  hundred.2 
/.    It  is  the  best  means  for  protecting  the  government, 
for 

1.    It  is  a  safeguard  against  the  populace  taking  the 
matter  of  life  and  death  into  their  own  hands  by 
(a)  Private  vengeance. 
(l>)  Lynching. 

1  New  Englander,  vol.  I,  p.  28.  2  Nation,  16,  193. 


380  APPENDIX. 

2.  It  is  a  safeguard  against  the  murder  of  those  in 
public  office  by 

(a)  Political  aspirants  or  their  accomplices. 

(b)  Anarchists. 

(c)  Men  like  Booth,  Guiteau,  and  the  murderer  of. 
Carter  Harrison. 

K.    Government  has  a  right  to  maintain  its  own  existence 
and    authority   by   the   best   means,    even    at    the 
expense  of  life,  for  * 
i.    It  is  a  part  of  the  social  compact  in  which  the 
state  originated,  for 
(a)  A  social   compact  necessarily  implies    a   sur- 
render to  society  of  all  the  rights  and  powers 
which  are  indispensable  to  its  own  preservation. 
Z.    It  is  the  most  effective  preventive  of  crime,  for 
i.    It  produces  more  horror  and  dread  of  the  crime 
of  murder  than  any  other  form  of  punishment. 

2.  A  man's  life  is  his  most  important  possession. 

3.  Confessions  of  convicted  criminals  show  that  they 
would  not  have  committed  the  crime  had  they! 
thought  that  they  would  suffer  death.2 

M.  Where  it  has  been  abolished  murder  has  increased, 
for 

1.  This  has  been  proved  by  statistics  to  be  the  case  in 
(a)  Rhode  Island. 
(J?)  Maine. 
(e)  Belgium. 

2.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  some  places 
where  it  had  been  abolished  it  has  been  restored, 
as  in 

(a)  Tuscany. 

(b)  Michigan. 

(c)  Parts  of  Switzerland. 

1  New  Englander,  vol.  ITT,  p.  562.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  I,  p.  28. 


APPENDIX.  381 


Conclusion. 


Since  capital  punishment  is  the  best  security  against  the 
conviction  of  the  innocent;  since  by  it  thousands  of  lives  are 
preserved ;  since  places  where  it  does  not  exist  become  a 
refuge  for  murderers ;  since  life  imprisonment  is  an  inadequate 
substitute  for  it ;  since  it  is  the  best  means  for  protecting  the 
Government ;  since  furthermore  it  is  the  most  effectual  deter- 
rent from  crime,  and  since  where  it  has  been  abolished  murder 
has  increased,  capital  punishment  should  not  be  abolished. 

Brief   II 
Should  Capital  Punishment  be  abolished  ? 

Introduction. 

I.  In  former  times  a  long  category  of  crimes  was  punished 
by  the  infliction  of  death,  usually  by  hanging,  on  the  guilty. 
As  time  went  on,  one  after  another  of  these  crimes  were 
expunged  from  the  national  code,  till  at  present  murder  is, 
generally  speaking,  the  only  crime  punished  with  loss  of  life. 
The  question  now  arises,  "  Why  not  abolish  capital  punishment 
for  murder  ? " 

II.  Capital  punishment  is  punishment  involving  the  for- 
feiture of  life,  inflicted  on  a  person  for  a  crime,  by  the  author- 
ity to  which  the  offender  is  subject. 

III.  Three  theories  concerning  the  design  of  punishment 
are  held. 

A.  Reformation  of  the  criminal. 

B.  Retribution. 

C.  Prevention. 

Brief  Proper. 

I.    Capital  punishment  should  be  abolished,  for 
A.    It  has  done  irrevocable  wrong,  for 


382  APPENDIX. 

i.    Inequality  and  unfairness  exist  in  the  administra- 
tion of  justice,  for 

(a)  In   some    places    criminals    are    much    better 
hanged  than  in  others,  for 

ir   Hanging  in  the  country  is  done  by  amateurs. 

(b)  The   same    punishment    is    inflicted    on    every 
person  who  commits  murder,  for 

i'   No  allowance  is  made  for  the  kind  of  murder 
perpetrated. 

(c)  A  certain  class  of  criminals  is  more  easily  put 
to  death  than  others,  for 

i'   It  is  hard  to  hang  a  person  who  holds  a  high 

social  position  in  the  community. 

2'   It  is  more  difficult  to  put  to  death  a  person 

of  wealth  than  a  person  of  little  or  no  means. 

(tl)  A   man    hanged  in  one   part  of   the  country 

escapes  in  another,  for 

1'   Certain  parts  of  the  country  have  abolished 

the  death  penalty. 
2'  The  farther  west  you  go  the  harder  it  is  to 
condemn. 
(e)  Murderers    are   hanged   at  certain   times  who 
would  not  be  hanged  at  others,  for 
1'   Much  depends  on  the  governor,  for 

(a)  If  he  is  a  soft,  weak,  conceited,  heartless 
man  his  judgment  is  apt  to  be  partial. 
2'   When  the  murder  is  general  and  people  are 
alarmed  for  their   safety,    the  criminal   will 
have  few  chances  to  escape,  but 
3'   If  some  time  has  elapsed  between  the  crime 
and    the    conviction    and  the   community   is 
unconscious  of  insecurity  he  will  have  many 
hopes  of  escaping  the  severe  penalty. 
4'   It  is  always  more  difficult  to  convict  after  an 
execution  than  before,  for 


APPENDIX.  383 

(a)  Experience  proves  it. 
(/)  The    laws    of    the   land    are    constantly   dis- 
regarded   and    acts    performed    which    they 
neither  recognize  nor  allow,  for 
ir  Although    they    state    that    every    murderer 
should  forfeit  his  life,  yet 
(a)  Many   guilty    men    are    inflicted   with    a 
lighter  punishment  or  pardoned.1 
2'  Of  two  men  found  guilty  of  a  capital  offense, 
one  is  violently  executed,  the  other  is  allowed 
to  escape,  because 
(a)  The  sympathies,  desires,  and  excited  pas- 
sions of  the  public  are  allowed  to  control, 
if  not  defy  the  carrying  out  of  the  law.2 
(g)  The  innocent  are  frequently  put  to  death  with 

the  guilty,  and 
(h)   Death  destroys  the  only  proof  of  innocence. 
(i)  Though  it  may  be  argued  that  other  punish- 
ments involve  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  yet 
(a)  The  dead  can  receive  no  reparation. 
Offenses  once  capital  are  no  longer  punished  with 
death.3 

Refutation. 

The  assertion  that  capital  punishment  is  a  uni- 
versal necessity  cannot  be  proved,  for 
(a)  Its  advocates  base  their  assertion  merely  on 
their  opinion  of  what  is  best  for  society,  for 
1'  The  fear  of  change  of   punishment  is  asso- 
ciated with  an  idea  of  certain  ruin  whenever 
the  change  shall  take  place. 

1  Westminster  Review,  vol.  17,  p.  57. 

2  North  American  Review,  vol.  62,  p.  52. 
8  Ibid.,  vol.  62,  p.  48. 


381  APPENDIX. 

(b)  A  mere  opinion  cannot  define  law  and  duty  in 
the  case  of  life  and  death.1 

(c)  They  cannot  rely  on  the  principles  of  retalia- 1 
tion,  for 

i'  The  principle  of  retaliation  is  forbidden  and 
disclaimed.2 

(d)  They  cannot  rely  on  the  principle  of  revenge, ; 
for 

ir  All   purpose  of    revenge   is    indignantly  dis- 1 
owned. 

(e)  They   cannot   rely   on    the   principle    of  self- 
defense,  for 

i'  The    right   of    taking   life    depends    on    the 

emergency. 
2'   It  has  not  lessened  the  number  of  murders. 
4.    The   assertion    that   capital   punishment  is   sanc- 
tioned by  divine  authority  cannot  be  supported,  for 

(a)  Passages  in   the  Bible  which  seem  to  uphold 
this  theory  are  capable  of  different  interpreta-J 
tions,  for 

i'  The  word  shall  in  Genesis,  ninth  chapter, 
sixth  verse,  on  which  the  whole  scriptural 
argument  depends,  can  by  permission  of  the 
Hebrew  and  English  language  be  changed 
to  will  and  so  express  simply  the  great 
retributive  law  of  God's  providenc  ;.a 

2'  The  Hebrew  future  does  not  always  stand 
for  the  imperative. 

(b)  The   Mosaic  code  was  made  for  the  Hebrews 
and  is  not  binding  on  other  nations. 

(c)  There  are  other  passages  of  equal  importance 
that  assert  the  contrary.4 

1  North  American  Review,  vol.  62,  p.  48.  2  Matthew  5  :  39. 

8  North  American  Review,  vol.  62,  p.  44. 
4  Genesis  9:14,  Exodus  20  :  13. 


APPENDIX.  385 

(d)  It  is  contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  Christian- 

ity, for 
i'  The  supreme  rule  is  to  return  good  for  evil. 

(e)  The  example  of  Christ  does  not  advocate  it,  for 
i'   He  spared  many  who  were  guilty  of  murder.1 

(/)  The  Jewish  penalties  and   retaliations   which 
comprised  originally  the  very  law  of  life  for 
life,  have  been  repealed  by  Christ. 
B.    Capital  punishment  fails  to  support  any  one  of  the 
three  theories  concerning  the  design  of  punishment, 
for 
i.    Though  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  only  legiti- 
mate design  of  punishment  should  be  to  reform 
the  criminal,  yet, 
a.  Capital  punishment  does  not  reform  the  crimi- 
nal, for 
\'  Death  cuts  him  off  from  all  further  opportuni- 
ties to  live  a  better  life. 

2.  Though  it  had  been  asserted  that  the  design  of 
punishment  should  be  to  retribute  the  guilty  per- 
son for  the  crime,  yet 

a.  Capital  punishment  does  not   punish  the  crimi- 
nal as  he  deserves,  for 
(Y)  The  most  desperate  and  hardened  criminal  is 
insensitive  to  the  suffering  he  has  to  endure 
and  to  the  ignominy,  for 
(a)  He  does  not  care  for  his  life. 

3.  Though  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  design  of 
punishment  should  be  to  protect  society  from 
other  crimes,  yet 

a.  Capital    punishment    fails    to    protect    society, 
because 
1'  It  does  not  prevent  murder,  for 

1  Genesis  4:15,  Exodus  2:12. 


3S6  APPENDIX. 

{a)  Although  it  is  said  that  the  fear  of  the  gal- 
lows prevents  crime,  yet 
i"  The  desperate  murderer  does    not   cal- 
culate the  severe  penalty  of  his  crime, 
and 
2"  If  he  did  calculate  the  result,  he  cannot 
be  blind  to  the  fact  that  jurors  are  excep- 
tionally difficult   to   convince  in  cases  of 
murder    when    the   evidence    is   circum- 
stantial. 
(&)  Though  the  objection  has  been  raised  that 
murders  are  committed  in  secret,  for  fear  of 
death,  yet 

1'  Murders    are    committed    in    secret  in 
places  where  the  death  penalty  has  been 
abolished. 
(c)  The  sight  of  executions  has    not  been  a 
warning,  for 
1'  It  is  demoralizing  in  nature,  for 

(a)  It  is  barbarous. 

(b)  There  is  always  more  or  less  savage 
exultation.1 

(c)  Facts  prove  that  a  large  number 
of  criminals  condemned  for  capital 
offenses  have  attended  executions.2 

2'   It  has   been   abolished  with  advantage 
to  society,  for 

a.  In  certain  parts  of  countries  where 
the  death  penalty  has  been  abolished, 
with  one  exception,  a  Swiss  canton, 
murders  have  not  increased,3  and 

b.  In  some  instances  murders  have 
been  known  to  decrease.4 

1  Westminster  Review,  vol.  81,  p.  412.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  81,  p.  412. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  91,  p.  438.  4  North  American  Review,  vol.  62,  pp.  66,  67. 


APPENDIX.  387 

Conclusion. 

Since,  therefore,  we  have  shown  that  capital  punishment  has 
done  irrevocable  wrong,  and  that  it  does  not  answer  any  of  the 
purposes  of  a  good  punishment,  we  conclude  that  capital 
punishment  should  be  abolished. 

Brief  III. 

Should  the  *  Students  of  Wellesley  College  have 
Self-Government  ? 

A.    Introduction. 

I.  The  question  arises  since, 

a.  Some  colleges  are  trying  this  method. 

b.  There  is  a  tendency  at  Wellesley  towards  this  method 
of  government. 

c.  There  is  a  strong  feeling  among  the  students  in  favor 
of  its  adoption. 

II.  Use  of  term  self-government. 

This  means  that  each  student  shall  govern  herself 
according  to  her  good  judgment,  and  shall  work  in 
cooperation  with  the  faculty  for  the  best  interests  of  her- 
self, her  fellow-students  and  the  institution. 

III.    Proposition. 

The  students  of  Wellesley  College  should  have  self-govern- 
ment. 

B.    Proof. 

To  adopt  this  method  of  self-government  would 
I.   Benefit  the  college,  as  an  institution,  for 

a.  It  would  give  it  the  greatest  strength,  since 

i.   It  would  give  more  unity.     M  In  unity  is  strength." 
(a)   Faculty  and  students  united  by 


38S  •  APPENDIX. 

(i)  Same  aim  :  The  greatest  good  of  college  and 

students. 
(2)  Increase  of  mutual  confidence,  for 

(a')  Without  unity  between  faculty  and  students 
there  is  lack  of  confidence.     See  state  of 
confidence  between  faculty  and  students  at 
Laselle  Seminary. 
(bf)  Trust  of  students  by  faculty  underlies  this£ 

government. 
(c')  The  students  appreciate  the  trust. 
(d')   Students   and   faculty   would   consult  each 
other  on  important  matters. 
b.   It  is  the  only  just  method  of  government,  since 

1.    All    would    share    in    government,   and  "legislation 
without  representation  is  tyranny";  see 

(a)  Attitude  of  English  towards  this. 

(b)  Attitude  of  Americans  towards  it. 
II.    Benefit  the  students. 

a.  In  spite  of  the  objection  that  relaxation  of  arbitrary 
restraint  of  students  would  tend  to  cause  the  students 
to  act  in  an  unbecoming  or  imprudent  manner. 

1.  Such  an  objection  would  be  granted  in  a  few 
cases,  but  not  for  the  most  part,  since 

(a)  Such    action     would    be    restrained    by   in- 
creased self-respect  of  students. 

(b)  Such  action  would  be  checked  by  sentiment 
of  faculty  and  students. 

b.  By  increasing  their  self-reliance  and  prudence. 

1.  Self-reliance  and  prudence  most  necessary  to 
women  in  all  spheres  of  life,  — 

As  business  women, 
As  mothers. 

2.  Self-reliance  and  prudence  increased  by  permitting 
the  practice  of.them  in  the  training-school  of  life> 
the  college. 


APPENDIX.  389 

c.  Since  it  has  benefited  those  that  have  attempted  it. 
i.  Contrast. 

Laselle  Seminary  and  Bryn  Mawr. 
2.  Tendency    toward    this    method    in    Wellesley   a 
success. 
Compare  first  years  of  college  with  present  time. 

C.    Conclusion. 

Since    self-government    would    benefit    the    institution    of 
Wellesley  College  and  its  students,  it  should  be  adopted. 

Brief  IV. 
Is  the  Principle  of  Prohibition  Right  ? 

Introduction. 

I.    Both  sides  agree  that 

a.    Use  of  alcoholic  liquors  to  an  excess  is  a  curse. 
II.    The  Principle  of  Prohibition,  one  solution  of  the  liquor 
question,  is  to  entirely  suppress  the  traffic  in  alcoholic  liquors 
as  a  beverage  by  Federal  and  State  legislation. 

III.    By  right  is  meant  that  which  is  in  accordance  with  the 
fundamental  laws  of  society  and  of  the  land. 

Brief  Proper. 

I.    The  Principle  of  Prohibition  is  right,  for 
A.    It  is  in  accordance  with  social  laws,  for 

i.    The  churches,  which  represent  the  principles  of  Chris- 
tian liberty,  endorse  it,  for 

a.  "  It  has  no  defensible  right  to  exist." l 

b.  "The  saloon  license  is  a  curse."2 

1  American  Baptist  Home  Mission  Society,  1890. 

2  Report  of  General  Assembly  of  Presbyterian  Church,  1892. 


390  APPENDIX. 

c.    "Liquor  traffic  cannot  be  legalized  without  sin."1 

2.  The  statement  that  Prohibition  would  interfere  with 
"  personal  liberty  "  is  a  weak  excuse  for  not  adopting 
the  principle,  for 

a.  It  could  be  brought  against  every  law,  and  individ- 
ual appetite  must  yield  to  the  demands  of  public  good 
in  regard  to  the  sale  of  liquor  as  in  other  cases  of 
restricted  or  suppressed  traffics. 

b.  It  could  be  brought  against  the  existence  of  society, 
for 

(i)  The  more  unlimited  the  personal  liberty,  the 
nearer  men  come  to  the  condition  of  the  Anar- 
chist and  the  savage. 

3.  It  does  not  propose  to  reform  moral  conduct. 

4.  It  is  to  prohibit  a  traffic  which  is  injurious  to  others 
besides  the  consumer,  for 

a.  It  is  injurious  to  the  country  financially,  for 
(1)  The  cost  of  the  traffic,  not  considering  the  indi- 
rect cost  of  $1,226,000,000,  is  eight  times  greater 
than  the  income,  for 

(a)  The  direct  cost  is  $100,000,000, 

(b)  Income  from  all  taxes  and  licenses  paid  by  the 
liquor  traffic  to  the  nation  and  the  states  is 
$124,000,000. 2 

b.  It  is  injurious  to  the  country,  for 
(1)   It  produces  that  which  is  detrimental  to  its  gen- 
eral welfare,  for 

(a)  The  statistics  of  every  state  show  a  greater 
amount  of  crime  and  misery  attributable  to  the 
use  of  ardent  spirits  obtained  at  their  retai 
liquor  saloons  than  to  any  other  source. 

(b)  "  For  we  cannot  shut  out  of  view  the  fact, 
within  the  knowledge  of  all,  that  the  public 

1  General  Conference  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1892. 

2  Fernald's  Economics  of  Prohibition. 


APPENDIX.  391 

health,  the  public  morals,  and  the  public  safety 
may  be  endangered  by  the  general  use  of  in- 
toxicating drinks,-  nor  the  facts,  accessible  to 
every  one,  that  the    disorder,  pauperism,  and 
crime   prevalent   in   the   country   are,   in  some 
degree  at  least,  traceable  to  this  evil."  * 
(/)   The   influence  of  the   agents  of  this  traffic  is 
constantly  exerted  against  the  interest  of  the 
people,  and  on  the  side  of  corruption,  for 
(V)   By  their  organization  and  immense  capital 
they  have  enormous  power,2  for 
(a1)   "  Do  you  deny  that  the  liquor  vote  controls 
the  situation  of  this  State  ?    What  defeated 
Warner  Miller  and  elected  Governor  Hill  ? 
What    gave    the    Democratic    Party    its 
present  majority  in  the  Assembly?   What 
elected  the  Tammany  ticket  in  this  city 
last  year  ?    Was  it  not  the  united  strength 
of  the  liquor  vote  ?  .  .  .  Regard  for  self- 
protection  and  preservation  has  consoli- 
dated the  liquor  dealers  and  forced  them 
into  an  attitude  in  which  they  have  become 
a  power  in  politics."  8 
B.    It  agrees  with  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  for 

i.    The  Government  has  power  over  all  forms  of  trade  and 
traffic,  for 

a.    The  Democratic  and  Republican  parties  are  incor- 
porated according  to  law :    and   trade,   and    how   it 
should  be  conducted,  are  the  fundamental  principles 
of  both. 
2.    The  barter  and  sale  of  liquor  has  been  recognized  as  a 
subject  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  legislature,  for 

1  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  Kansas  cases. 

2  Prohibition  Principles,  Policy  and  Party,  p.  78. 

3  New  York  Wine  and  Spirit  Gazette,  April  28,  1891. 


392  APPENDIX. 

a.    All  the  States  have  passed  some  laws  relative  to  this 
trade. 
3.    The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  declared 
the  full  power  of  the  State  to  regulate,  restrain,  and 
prohibit  the  traffic,  for 
a.    If  a  State  deems  the  retail  and  internal  traffic  of 
ardent  spirits  injurious  to  its  citizens  and  calculated 
to  produce  idleness,  vice,  or  debauchery,  I  see  noth- 
ing in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  pre- 
vent it  from  regulating  and  restraining  the  traffic,  or 
from  prohibiting  it  altogether. 

Conclusion. 

Since  the  Principle  of  Prohibition  is  supported  by  the  laws 
of  society  and  by  the  laws  as  upheld  by  the  U.  S.  Supreme 
Court,  I  maintain  that  it  is  right. 

Brief  V. 

Have    the    New    England    Puritans    been    too    Se- 
verely   CENSURED     FOR    THEIR    TREATMENT    OF    THE 

Quakers  and  so-called  Witches  ? 
Introduction. 

I.    Explanation  of  terms. 

a.  The  Puritans  were  dissenters  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  the  advocates,  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  of 
a  simpler  form  of  faith  and  worship  than  that  which  was 
established  by  law.  Those  of  their  number  who  sought 
freedom  from  religious  restraint  by  making  their  home  in 
New  England  were  especially  strict  and  scrupulous  in 
their  religious  life.1    They  were  men  who  dreamed  dreams 

1  Lodge's  S/iort  History  of  the  American  Colonies,  vol.  I,  p.  435. 


APPENDIX.  393 

and  saw  visions,  and  pondered  on  them  as  communica- 
tions from  the  Almighty.  Every  extraordinary  event  was 
ascribed  to  His  intervention.  Manifestations  of  Satan 
were  expected  and  found ;  they  believed  in  the  noises  of 
the  air  and  signs  in  the  heavens. 

b.  The  Quakers  were  a  religious  sect  whose  founder  was 
born  in  England  in  1624.  The  violent  enthusiasm  of 
these  preachers  gave  them  this  name.  Their  excitement 
was  so  great  that  many  of  them  cried  out  from  their  win- 
dows at  the  magistrates  and  ministers,  and  mocked  the 
civil  and  religious  institutions  of  the  country.1  They 
riotously  interrupted  public  worship,  and  women,  claim- 
ing divine  origin  for  their  absurd  caprices,  smeared  their 
faces  and  went  naked  through  the  streets. 

c.  Witches  (so-called)  were  those  regarded  as  possessing 
supernatural  or  magical  power  by  compact  with  evil 
spirits.  Witchcraft  at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury appealed  to  a  strong  and  generally  accepted  supersti- 
tion; it  was  recognized  by  law,  and  the  best  evidences 
attainable  under  the  circumstances  were  introduced. 

II.  History  of  the  question. 

a.  Ever  since  the  days  of  the  Puritans,  there  has  been 
much  adverse  criticism  of  their  treatment  of  the  Quakers 
and  so-called  witches,  because 

1.    Their  laws  have  been  considered  unnatural,  cruel  and 
inhuman,  for 
(a)  Quakers  were  prohibited  the  country,   on   pain   of 
death. 

b.  Witches,  so-called,  were  tried,  condemned,  and  punished. 

III.  The  question  considers  whether  this  criticism  has  been 
too  severe. 

1  Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  I,  p.  454. 


394  APPENDIX. 


Brief  Proper. 


I.  The  New  England  Puritans  have  been  censured  too 
severely  for  their  treatment  of  the  Quakers  and  so- 
called  witches,  for 

a.  All  communities  are  liable  to  such  errors,  for 
i.    It  was  the  case  in  England,  for 

(a)  In    Essex  and   Suffolk 1  200  were  indicated  as 
afflicted  and  one-half  of  them  executed. 
2.    It  was  the  case  in  the  New  York  Negro  Plot  fifty 
years  later. 

b.  The  laws  of  the  country  furnished  an  example  for  their 
action,  for 

1.  Banishment  on  pain  of  death  was  common  in  English 
legislation,  for 

(a)  This  was  an  act  of  Elizabeth  in  regard  to  dis- 
senters. 

(b)  John   Quilburne,   in   1652,  was  so  banished- by 
Parliament. 

c.  Their  right  to  their  territory  was  absolute,  for 

1.  They  had  paid  dearly  for  the  privilege  of  enjoying 
freedom  of  inclination  in  religious  matters,  for 

(a)  They  had,  for  that  purpose,  suffered  exile. 

2.  Their  charter  gave  them  express  power  to  "expulse 
all  such  persons  as  should,  at  any  time,  attempt  or 
enterprise  detriment  or  any  annoyance  to  their 
plantation  or  its  inhabitants.2 

d.  It  was  natural  that  witchcraft  and  the  intervention  of 
Satan  should  seem  to  them  terrible,  but  natural  afflic- 
tions, for 

1.    They  were  surrounded  by  gloom  in  nature.3 

1  North  American  Review,  vol.  108,  p.  343. 

2  Palfrey's  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  1,  pp.  387,  388. 

3  Idem. 


APPENDIX.  395 

2.  They  were  acquainted  with  hard  toil. 

3.  There  was  universal,  political  and  financial  depres- 
sion. 

4.  They  were  in  constant  fear  of  Indian  attacks. 

5.  Their  religious  faith  naturally  made  them  melancholy 
and  brooding,  for 

(a)  It  was  severe  and  terrible. 
e.    They  acted,  they  believed,  for  self-preservation,  for 

1.  The  infant  stage  of  the  community  demanded  severe 
measures,  for 

(a)  Their  civil  authority  needed  to  be  recognized  and 
maintained. 

2.  Their  own  testimony  is  "  For  the  security  of  the 
flock,  we  pen  up  the  wolf,  but  a  door  is  purposely 
left  open  whereby  he  may  depart  at  his  pleasure." 

/.    They  were  naturally  humane  and  sympathetic,  for 

1.  Their  earliest  laws  (till  1654)  did  not  permit  im- 
prisonment for  debt  unless  they  believed  the  debtor 
able  to  pay. 

2.  Cruelty  towards  animals  was  a  civil  offense. 

3.  Their  sympathies  extended  outside  of  their  own 
community,  for 

(a)  Sincerest  sympathy  was  shown  for  their  Saxon 
brethren  during  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  for 
(1)    They  held  fasts  and  offered  prayers  for  their 
success. 
g.    When  they  believed  themselves  strong  and  confident 
enough,  they  desisted  from  harsh  measures,  for 
1.    The  reaction  took  place  among  the  people  them- 
selves   and   an    attempt   was   made   at    legislative 
restitution.1 

1  Lowell's  Among  My  Books,  p.  148. 


396  APPENDIX. 

Conclusion. 

Since  all  communities  are  liable  to  such  errors,  since  Eng- 
land furnished  them  with  examples,  since  what  they  did  was 
perfectly  lawful,  since  their  belief  in  witches  and  the  interven- 
tion of  Satan  was  natural,  since  they  acted,  as  they  believed, 
for  their  self-preservation,  since  they  were,  as  a  rule,  kind  and 
sympathetic,  and  since  they  softened  their  harsh  measures 
when  they  felt  themselves  strong  enough  to  do  so,  I  conclude 
that  the  New  England  Puritans  have  been  censured  too  severe- 
ly for  their  treatment  of  the  Quakers  and  so-called  witches. 

Brief    VI. 

Was    Corneille   Guilty   of    Plagiarism   in   Writing 
"Le  Cid"  ? 

Proposition  :  He  was  guilty  of  plagiarism. 

A  and  B.     Introduction  and  Narration. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  publication  of  the  Cid,  Scuderi 
accused  Corneille  of  plagiarism. 

Plagiarism  defined  :  The  act  -  of  appropriating  the  ideas  or 
language  of  another,  and  passing  them  for  one's  own,  —  literary 
theft.  —  Walpole  (Worcester's  Dictionary). 

C.     Proof. 

(a)  Plot  of  Corneille's  Cid  is  practically  the  same  as  that  of 
De  Castro's  Cid. 

i.  In  situations. 
2.  In  characters. 

(b)  Not  only  are  the  plots    practically  alike,  but  the  same 
similarity  occurs  in  the  language  of  the  two  plays. 

i.  There  are  passages  where  the  thoughts  are  De  Castro's 
thoughts  expressed  in  slightly  altered  form  (example). 


APPENDIX.  397 

2.  There  are  passages  that  are  very  close  translations 
(examples). 

3.  There  are  passages  that  are  word-for-word  translations 
(examples). 

(c)  If  Corneille  had  acknowledged  these  passages,  he  would, 
perhaps,  have  been  free  from  the  charge  of  plagiarism, 
but  his  first  edition  of  the  Cid  contains  no  acknowledg- 
ment to  De  Castro. 

(d)  He  went  further  and  said  he  was  indebted  to  no  one. 

(e)  When  one  of  his  enemies  showed  the  places  of  resem- 
blance in  the  two  Cids,  then,  and  only  then,  did  Cor- 
neille publicly  admit  that    he    had   borrowed  from   De 

Castro. 

D.     Refutation. 

(a)  It  may  be  contended  that  Corneille's  Cid  differs  in 
detail  from  that  of  De  Castro. 

1.  Granting  this  contention  for  the  moment,  the  fact  still 
remains  that  Corneille  borrowed  without  acknowledg- 
ment :  so  this  contention  does  not  affect  the  question  at 
issue. 

2.  But  this  contention  must  fall  to  the  ground  for  an- 
other reason,  namely  :%  Corneille  had  to  conform  to  the 
rule  of  the  three  unities. 

All  the  changes  he  made  were  made  so  that  the  Cid  should 
not  offend  against 

1.  The  unity  of  time, 

2.  The  unity  of  place, 

3.  The  unity  of  action, 

and  the  changes  were  made  only  in  so  far  as  to  conform  to 
these  rules. 

(a)  It  may  be  further  maintained  that  the  "  Romance  of  the 

Cid  "  was  common  property. 
(//)  This  contention,   also,  does   not  affect  the   question  at 
issue,  as  Corneille  himself,    in  the  preface  to  his  later 
evidence,  says  that  he  copied  from  De  Castro. 


398  APPENDIX. 

E.     Conclusion. 

(a)  Summing  up  from  D  and  C. 

Conclusion  proper.     Corneille  was  guilty  of  plagiarism. 

Brief  VII 

Was  Lincoln's  Plan  of  Reconstruction  Superior  to 
the  Congressional  Plan  ? 

Brief  for  the  Affirmative. 

Explanatory. 

I.     Lincoln's  plan  was  in  outline  as  follows: — 

i.  An  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of 
Congress  and  proclamations  of  the  Executive  promulgated 
during  the  war  to  be  administered  by  the  military  authori- 
ties to  those  willing  to  take  it. 

2.  The  State  government  to  be  reestablished  by  persons 
taking  the  oath,  and  who  should  be  legal  voters  under  the 
State  constitution  in  force  before  secession:  certain  per- 
sons (officers  of  the  Confederacy,  officers  of  the  U.  S.  who 
had  gone  over  to  the  Confederacy,  etc.)  being  excepted ; 
the  numbers  of  those  taking  part  in  the  reestablishment 
being  at  least  one-tenth  the  number  of  persons  voting  at  the 
regular  elections  in  i860  in  the  respective  States. 

3.  The  governments  so  reconstructed  to  be  recognized  by 
the  National  Government,  the  houses  of  Congress  being 
left  to  decide  as  to  the  admission  of  members  from  the  re- 
constructed States. 

4.  When  loyal  governments  had  been  maintained,  these  to 
be  recognized  at  once. 

5.  (Suggestion  merely.)  The  names,  boundaries,  sub- 
divisions, constitutional  and  general  codes  of  laws  of  the 
several  States  to  be  retained. 

6.  The  plan  not  to  be  considered  the  only  acceptable  one. 


APPENDIX.  399 

II.  The  plan  adopted  by  Congress  was  in  outline  as  fol- 
lows : 
i.  The  conquered  territory  to  be  divided  into  Military 
Districts,  each  under  the  practically  absolute  rule  of  an 
officer  of  high  rank,  who  has  to  hold  office  till  the  pro- 
gramme should  be  carried  out. 

2.  Registration  conducted  by  military  rulers,  and  then  an 
election  of  delegates  to  a  convention  ;  the  electors  being 
negroes,  and  white  men  taking  an  oath  of  allegiance,  pro- 
vided that  a  majority  of  those  thus  qualified  to  vote  should 
express  a  desire  to  hold  a  Convention ;  those  "  disfran- 
chised for  participation  in  rebellion "  to  be  denied  the 
privilege  of  voting. 

3.  The  Convention  to  form  a  constitution  which  should 
grant  franchise  to  negroes  and  to  "whites  not  disfranchised 
for  participation  in  the  rebellion";  this  constitution  to  be 
adopted  by  the  same  persons  allowed  to  vote  in  elections 
to  the  Convention. 

4.  The  constitution  to  be  submitted  to  Congress  for 
approval. 

5.  The  Legislature  elected  under  the  constitution  to  ratify 
the  amendment  to  the  United  States  Constitution. 
(Fourteenth  Amendment.) 

6.  The  amendment  having  been  ratified  by  a  sufficient 
number  of  States  to  make  it  a  part  of  the  Constitution, 
the  States  to  be  admitted  to  representation  in  Congress. 

Discussion. 

I.    Lincoln's  plan  was  preferable  in  point  of  constitutionality. 

1.  It  did  not  imply  that  the  States  were  out  of  the  Union, 
whereas  the  Congressional  plan  in  some  respects  implied 
that  they  were  ;  in  others,  that  they  were  not. 

2.  It  represented  the  rights  of  the  States,  whereas  the  other 
violated  them. 


400  APPENDIX. 

(a)  In  the  matter  of  control  over  franchise ; 
(p)  In  regard  to  the  Fourteenth  Amendment. 

3.  It  assumed  the  right  to  reconstruct  or  "guarantee  a 
republican  form  of  government "  to  be  in  the  Executive, 
while  the  other  placed  it  in  Congress.  Considerations 
making  for  Lincoln's  view  are: 

(a)  That  from  the  nature  of    things  Executive  action  is 

necessary  to  carry  out  the  clause ; 
(/>)  That  it  is  also  quicker  and  surer. 

4.  The  Congressional  plan  went  far  beyond  any  powers 
conveyed  in  the  clause  ("to  guarantee  a  republican  form," 
etc.) 

(1)  In  the  matter  of  franchise; 

(2)  In  violating  individual  rights,  like  trial  by  jury; 

(3)  In  violating  the  constitutional  right  of  the  State 

to  representation; 

(4)  In  infringing  the  President's  prerogative  of  pardon. 
II.    Lincoln's  plan  was  preferable  as  regards  expediency: 

1.  It  was  quicker; 

2.  It  was  less  rigid  and  minute,  and  hence  less  oppressive  ; 

3.  It  avoided  or  would  shorten  military  rule  ; 

4.  It  was  practical  (as  was  shown  by  Johnson's  experiment) 
and  its  results,  so  far  as  tested,  satisfactory ; 

5.  Its  purpose  and  spirit  were  broad  and  patriotic,  those  of 
the  other  plan  thoroughly  partisan  and  narrow; 

6.  The  results  of  the  Congressional  plan    as  applied  were 

such    enormities  of  misrule  as  could  scarcely  have  been 
exceeded  by  those  of  any  other  plan  whatsoever. 

Material  for  Briefs. 

Speeches  and  essays  from  which  briefs  may  be  drawn  by 
students  in  order  to  train  them  in  the  brief  form  and  to  show 
them  the  careful  structure  that  underlies  all  good  Argumenta- 
tion may  be  found  in   Specimens  of  Argumentation  (Modern). 


APPENDIX.  401 

H.  Holt  &  Co.  If  it  seems  best  that  students,  instead  of 
passing  directly  from  such  work  to  briefs  of  their  own  on  the 
somewhat  difficult  topics  they  are  to  consider,  should  have  an 
opportunity  to  draw  briefs  of  their  own  from  material  easy  to 
handle,  the  following  will  be  useful. 

Material   for  a  Trial  Brief. 

In  the  last  years  of  the  sixteenth  century,  a  man  in  middle 
life,  poor,  with  no  attendants,  appeared  in  Venice,  asserting 
his  claim  to  the  throne  of  Portugal  as  Don  Sebastian,  its 
former  king.  Some  twenty  years  before,  young  Don  Sebastian, 
then  king  of  Portugal,  had  crossed  into  Africa  with  the  flower 
of  his  court  and  army  for  a  crusade  against  the  Infidels,  the 
Moors.  In  the  first  battle,  his  army  was  routed  with  terrible 
loss,  and  in  the  confusion  he  disappeared.  There  were  rumors 
that  he  had  escaped  and  had  been  seen  in  hiding  at  a  monas- 
tery in  Portugal ;  there  were  also  rumors  that  he  was  dead. 
As  time  passed  all,  except  a  very  few  in  Portugal  who  still 
hoped,  believed  that  he  was  dead.  Philip  II.  took  Portugal 
under  his  control,  and  it  was  to  win  supporters  against  the 
Spanish  king  that  the  claimant  worked. 

He  said  that  he  fled  in  the  rout  and  wandered  about  with 
his  followers ;  that  because  of  the  overwhelming  nature  of  his 
defeat  in  this  first  battle  of  what  he  had  believed  to  be  a  holy 
war,  he  felt  a  judgment  of  God  in  his  defeat,  and  was  too 
overcome,  too  disgraced,  to  show  himself  to  the  people. 
Therefore,  he  went  to  the  Portuguese  monastery  in  hiding, 
thinking  later  to  reveal  himself.  His  sense  of  disgrace  in- 
creased, however,  and  he  determined  to  do  penance  by  fighting 
with  his  small  band  of  followers  against  the  Paynim  in  the 
East.  He  named  many  Eastern  countries  in  which  he  had 
traveled  and  fought.  After  much  successful  fighting,  finding 
that  his  feeling  that  his  defeat  had  been  a  judgment  of  God 
grew  upon   him,  he  determined  to  become  a  hermit,  and  dis- 


402  APPENDIX. 

missed  all  of  his  followers.  To  a  fellow-hermit  he  told  his 
story,  and  this  man's  strong  appeals  aroused  him  to  assert  his 
rights.  He  gathered  some  servants  about  him,  and  set  off 
for  Venice  to  press  his  claims.  On  the  road  his  servants 
robbed  him  of  everything  and  deserted  him. 

He  urged  his  claims  with  great  plausibility,  gaining  many 
supporters.  In  meeting  the  opposition  offered  him  by  the 
friends  of  Philip,  which  amounted  to  something  not  unlike 
persecution,  he  showed  much  dignity  and  manliness,  remaining 
throughout  examinations  and  torture  unswerving  in  his  state- 
ment that  he  was  the  king.  He  told  several  stories  of  the 
king's  youth  and  of  his  young  manhood  that  showed  an  inti- 
mate knowledge  of  Don  Sebastian's  life.  He  spoke  Portuguese 
with  an  accent,  gained,  he  said,  by  speaking  for  twenty  years 
the  languages  of  the  East.  Don  Sebastian  had  had  marked 
physical  characteristics,  a  limp,  some  wounds,  etc.  The  limp 
and  the  scars  the  claimant  showed.  Some  persons  who  had 
known  Don  Sebastian,  mainly,  however,  ignorant  people  who 
had  not  known  him  well,  recognized  the  claimant  as  the  king 
they  had  seen  twenty  years  before.  (For  further  particulars, 
see  biographical  dictionaries.) 

First  determine  what  are  the  essential  ideas  to  be  proved  for 
or  against  the  claimant  and  then  support  these  by  sub-heads 
drawn  from  the  evidence  stated  in  the  above  account.  From 
this  material   draw  a  brief  either  in  support  of  or  against  the 


claims  of  this  man. 


INDEX 


Adaptation  of  subject  to  knowledge 
of  audience,  321. 

Ambiguous  evidence,  use  of,  258. 

Amplifying  one's  fitness  for  the 
work,  290. 

Analogy,  argument  from,  256-7. 

Analysis,  chapter  on,  30-82  ;  the 
first  great  division  of  argumenta- 
tion, 30  ;  first  step  in,  proposition 
not  term,  32-38  ;  second  step  in, 
definition,  40-66  ;  third  step  in, 
study  of  origin  of  question,  66-69; 
what  first  three  steps  give,  70; 
fourth  step  in,  finding  special  is- 
sue, 70-77  ;  fifth  step  in,  finding 
relation  of  central  idea  to  other 
ideas,  77-79;  summary  of,  79 ; 
importance  of,  82  ;  the  great  foe 
of  fallacies,  266. 

Antecedent  probability,  argument 
from,  202. 

Applied  Logic,  24. 

Arguing  a  term,  35. 

Arguing  in  a  circle,  251. 

Arguing  in  law  courts,  relation  of  to 
argumentation,  8. 

Arguing  from  a  false  assumption, 

255-257. 
Argument  from  analogy,  256-7 ;  from 
antecedent  probability,  202;  from 
authority,    177  ;    dangers  of  this 
argument,    177-180;   from  exam- 


ple, 204-206 ;  from  resemblances, 
206-214;  from  sign,  203-4. 

Argument  itself,  of  a  forensic,  293- 
322  ;  work  of  conviction  in,  293- 
319  ;  unity,  clearness  and  force  in, 
293-4  ;  relation  to  brief  of,  297-8; 
work  of  persuasion  in,  319-322. 

Argumentation,  chanter  on  the  na- 
ture of,  1-30  ;  definition  of,  1  ;  in- 
terrelation of  conviction  and  per- 
suasion in,  7;  relation  to  methods 
of  arguing  in  law  courts,  8-13; 
relation  to  logic,  13-15;  what  is 
included  besides  logic  in,  15-20; 
persuasive  methods  in,  1 5-6 ; 
place  of  rhetoric  in,  16-19;  place 
of  rules  of  evidence  in,  19-20  ; 
the  four  divisions  of,  their  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  20 ;  why 
knowledge  of  formal  logic  is 
not  necessary  in,  21-25;  two  mam 
kinds  of,  25  ;  relation  to  rhetoric, 
26;  three  conditions  necessary  for 
success  in,  30;  the  first  great 
division  of,  analysis,  30-1  ;  sec- 
ond great  division  of,  evidence, 
31 ;  third  and  fourth  great  divi- 
sions of,  rhetorical  structure  and 
persuasion,  32;  chapter  on  prepar- 
atory reading  for,  166-175;  in- 
dividuality, originality  in,  172-175; 
emphasis  in,  310-315  ;  necessity 
for  mastery  of  the  rules  of,  375-6. 


404 


INDEX. 


Argumentum  ad  homineni,  definition 
of,  259;  good  and  fallacious  uses 
of,  259-261. 

Assertion,  what  it  is,  176;  not  proof 
of  anything,  181-2  ;  what  it  pro- 
duces, illustrated  by  Beaconsfield 
forensic,  182-185;  now  l^e  asser- 
tiveness  of  the  Beaconsfield  foren- 
sic may  be  removed,  185-192 ; 
proper  support  of,  192-196. 

Assumption,  distinguished  from  pre- 
sumption, 308,  footnote. 

Avoidance  of  anything  that  may 
arouse  hostility  to  end  in  view, 
363-366. 


Beaconsfield  forensic,  quoted,  17-8, 

182-185  ;  revision  of,  185-192. 
Because,  to  be  avoided  as  connective 
in  brief  introductions,    103,  illus- 
trated by  Brief  F,  103  ;   value  of 
as    connective    in    brief    proper, 
131-2. 
Briefs,  chapter  on  drawing  of,  8$- 
165  ;  origin  of,  83  ;  relation  of  to 
summary,    84-91  ;    definition    of, 
85;  three  divisions  of,  86;  work 
the  divisions   of,  91-165. 
Introduction  of,86,9i-io8;  length 
of,  91-2 ;  test  of,  92  ;  rules  for, 
97;  correlation  of, 99;  prejudice 
in,  105;  summary  of,  108. 
Brief    proper    of,    108-150;    two 
kinds  of  refutation  in,  109-111; 
first  great  requisite  of,  phrasing 
headings  and   sub-headings  as 
reasons,  125-134  ;  vagueness  of 
phrasing  in,    135-138  ;    second 
great  requisite  of,  correct  cor- 
relation, 138-147;  transition  be- 
tween   divisions    of,    138-140; 


correlation    in,    140 ;    crowded 

headings  in,  142-145  ;  summary 

of,  150. 
Conclusion  of,  150-154;  when  to 

use  and  when  to  omit,  150-153; 

summary  of,  154. 
Relation  of  to  forensic,  269-70, 

274. 
Briefs  quoted,  as  illustrations  of: 
Avoidance  of  '  for '  and  '  because  I 

in  the  introduction,  F,  103. 
Examples  of  good  briefs,  H,  1 1 1 ; 

J,  121  ;  U,  154  ;  V,  159. 
Bad   correlation  in  brief   proper, 

0,  137. 

Double  marking,  E,  102. 

Lack  of  definition,  B,  92,  revision 

of,  B'2,  93;  C,  95,  revision  of, 

C\  97. 
Omission  of  conclusion,  T,  152. 
Phrasing  ideas  as  reasons,  K,  25; 

L,  127  ;  M,  129. 
Prejudicial  introductions,  G,  106. 
Refutation  placed  at  beginning  of 

brief,  H,  in. 
Refutation  placed  at  end  of  brief, 

1,  117. 

Refutation    placed   in  •  middle  of 
brief,  J,  i2i. 

Statement  of  conclusion,  S,  151. 

Unclimactic  arrangement,  R,  14S. 

Uncorrelated  introduction, D,  100, 
revision  of,  100. 

Vagueness,   A,   85;  revisions  of, 
A1,  87-8;  A2,  89-91. 

Vagueness  of   phrasing   in    brief 
proper,  O,  137. 

Vague  transitions,  P,  138. 

Wrong  connectives,  N,  132,   revi- 
sion of,  N1,  133. 
Briefs  quoted,  topics  of: 

Are    the     Astronomical     Condi- 


INDEX. 


405 


tions  Described  inCroll's  theory 
Sufficient  to  account  for  the 
Climactic  Conditions  of  the 
Glacial  Epoch  ?  103-105. 

Are  the  Irish  justified  in  Using 
Illegal  Methods  of  Resistance 
to  English  Rule?  85,  revisions 
of,  87,  89-91. 

Carlyle's  Estimate  of  the  18th 
Century  is  Incorrect,  92-3,  re- 
vision of  93-95;   148. 

Did  the  Council  of  Constance 
maintain  the  Principle  that  it 
was  Necessary  for  the  Church 
to  keep  Faith  with  a  Heretic  ? 
102,  125-6. 

Does  Lamb  Rightly  estimate  the 
"  Artificial  Comedy  of  the  Last 
Century"?  138-9. 

Does  the  Gorge  of  the  Niagara 
River  afford  a  Sufficient  Index 
of  the  Duration  of  Post-Glacial 
time?  100,  154-159;  revision 
of,  1 00- 1. 

Is  the  Expulsion  of  the  Jews  from 
Russia     Justifiable?     111-117, 

Is  the  Gothenburg  Plan  for  Solv- 
ing the  Liquor  Question  Practi- 
cable in  Massachusetts  ?  95-6. 

Removal  of  the  Troops  from  Bos- 
ton is  Necessary,  1 21-124,  lS2- 

Should  Boston  adopt  a  System  of 
Underground  or  of  Elevated 
Transit?  159-165. 

Was  it  Wise  for  Adams  to  send 
the  Envoys  to  France  in  1799? 
106. 

Was  Swift  Married  to  Stella? 
117-121,  137. 

Will  Matthew  Arnold  live  as  a 
Poet?  127-8,  1 29-1 31,  140. 


Will   the  New  Rules  in  Football 
improve  the  Game?   132-3,  re- 
vision of,  133-4. 
Would  the  Norwegian  System  of 
selling  Liquor  be  Practicable  in 
Massachusetts  ?  97-99. 
Briefs,  specimen,  appendix,  377-400. 
Brief,  trial,  appendix,  401. 
Brevity,  in  the  peroration,  336;  es- 
sential in  any  appeal  to  the  emo- 
tions, 359-366 ;  a  method  of  gain- 
ing, 361. 

C. 

Central  idea,  to  find  relation  of,  to 
other  ideas  in  the  case,  77-79. 

Choice  of  subject,  375. 

Civilization,  vague  definition  of  in 
student's. forensic,  46;  good  defini- 
tion of,  53. 

Clearness,  in  the  peroration,  339- 
40. 

Climax,  usefulness  of  in  briefs,  147- 
1 50 ;  illustrations  of,   B2,  93  ;  R, 

145- 

Conclusion,  of  a  brief,  86-7  ;  1 50- 
1 54 ;  when  it  may  be  omitted, 
150-153;  illustrated  by  S,  1 51  ; 
T,  152  ;  qualifying,  153;  summary 
of,  1 54  ;  relation  of  to  premise, 
244  ;  when  to  be  stated  in  an  in- 
troduction, 274-276  ;  do  not  quote 
merely,  296-7. 

Concreteness,  in  evidence,  301-304  ; 
value  of  in  persuasion,  362-3. 

Connectives,  in  brief  introductions, 
correct  and  incorrect,  103,  illus- 
trated by  F,  103. 

Connectives  in  brief  proper,  correct 
and  incorrect,  132,  illustrated  by 
N  and  N  \  132-3. 

Consistency  of  statement,  with  ordi- 


406 


INDEX. 


nary  experience,  221-224  ;  weak- 
ness of  this  test,  224;  with  known 
facts  of  the  case,  224-5  5  danger 
of  this  test,  225-6  ;  with  itself, 
226-7. 

Conviction,  method  of,  1  ;  illustra- 
tion of  pure,  2-3 ;  the  weakness 
of  pure,  5;  interrelation  with  per- 
suasion, 7  ;  work  of  forensic  in- 
troduction in,  271-279;  relative 
proportion  in  forensic  introduc- 
tion of  persuasion  and  of,  292 ; 
work  of  argument  proper  in, 
293-319  ;  work  of  peroration  in, 
325-329;  mingling  with  persua- 
sion in  peroration,  334  ;  aim  of, 
344 ;  study  of,  as  opposed  to 
study  of  persuasion,  350;  relative 
proportion  with  writer  and  speaker 
of  persuasion  and  of,  37 1—373- 

Correlation,  of  brief  introduction, 
99,  illustrated  by  D,  and  revision, 
100 ;    three   common    errors    of, 

i45-*47- 
Correlation  of  brief  proper,  140-142, 

illustrated  by  Q,  140. 
Crowded  headings  in  brief  proper, 

142-145. 


Definition,  of  argumentation,  1  ; 
the  second  step  in  argumentation, 
40  ;  necessary  for  an  understand- 
ing of  most  propositions,  41  ; 
difficulty  of  finding  satisfactory, 
44 ;  four  requirements  in,  46-49  ; 
of  statesmanlike,  fine  arts  and 
civilization,  50-54 ;  different 
methods  of,  54-59  ;  to  what  ex- 
tent, 63-66  ;  illustrations  of  lack 
of,  in  brief  introductions,  B,  92, 
C,  95  ;  illustrations  of  lack  of,  in 


forensic  introductions,  45-6,  272- 
274. 

Dilemma,  the,  a  method  of  refuta- 
tion, 306-308. 

Divisions,  of  argumentation,  the 
four  great,  130-132;  of  brief 
proper,  correct  order  of,  133  ; 
transitions  between,  138,  illus- 
trated by  P,  138. 

Double  marking,  in  introduction, 
102,  illustrated  by  E,  102  ;  in 
brief  propsr,  147. 


Elegance,  in  forensic  introduction, 
276-7. 

Emotion,  in  persuasion,  357  ;  danger 
of  showing,  358 ;  three  qualities 
essential  to  appeals  to,  359-366. 

Emphasis,   in    argumentation,   310- 

Evidence,  place  of  rules  of,  in  argu- 
mentation, 19;  study  of  rules  of, 
the  second  main  division  of  argu- 
mentation, 31;  chapter  on,  176- 
268  ;  nature  of,  176-196  ;  defini- 
tion of,  1  So  ;  kinds  of,  196-220  ; 
not  limited  as  in  courts,  197-8; 
three  common  divisions  of,  198- 
206 ;  testimonial  and  circumstan- 
tial, 199;  direct  and  indirect,  199- 
202;  a  fourth  possible  division  of, 
209-214;  reason  why  questioned, 
215;  three  grounds  of  objection 
to,  216;  why  careful  sifting  jl 
necessary,  216-219;  to  question, 
is  to  question  a  judgment,  219- 
20;  tests  of,  220-238,  see  Tests; 
three  kinds  of,  in  themselves  trust- 
worthy, 238-241  ;  external  and 
internal  tests  of,  242;  use  of 
metaphors    and   similes  as,    256; 


INDEX. 


407 


use  of  tests  at  will,  267  ;  summary 
of  tests  of,  267-8  ;  importance 
of  study  of,  268  ;  suggestions  for 
handling  of,  295-319 ;  concrete- 
ness  in,  301-304. 

Example,  argument  from,  204-206. 

External  tests,  242  ;  use  of  at  will, 
267  ;  summary  of,  267-8. 


F. 


Fair  prejudice,  as  opposed  to  unfair, 
291. 

Fallacies,  242-266;  their  dangers, 
242-244  ;  attempted  division  of, 
244  ;  of  ambiguity,  246-249;  sum- 
mary of  fallacies  of  ambiguity, 
249 ;  of  begging  the  question, 
249-258,  summary  of  this,  258 ; 
arising  from  attempt  to  find  a 
cause  for  an  effect,  251-253 ; 
sources  of  these,  253-255;  of 
ignoring  the  question,  259-265; 
of  objections,  262-264,  summary 
of  this,  264-5;  why  a  further  sub- 
division of,  is  unnecessary  here, 
265-6  ;  analysis  the  great  foe  of, 
266. 

Fine  Arts,  vague  definition  of,  in 
student's  forensic,  46  ;  good  defi- 
nition of,  51-53. 

For,  connective  to  be  avoided  in 
brief  introductions,  103,  illus- 
trated by  F,  103;  value  of  in  brief 
proper,  131-2. 

Forensic  itself,  chapter  on,  269-343; 
relation  of  to  brief,  269-70,  274; 
three  divisions  of,  270-1  ;  in- 
troduction of,  271-293,  see  Intro- 
duction ;  argument  itself  of,  293- 
322,  see  Argtiment  itself ;  perora- 
ion  of,  322-342,  see  Peroration. 


Forensics,  quoted,  as  illustrations  of: 
Assertions,  182-185,  revision  of, 

185-192. 
Good  introduction,  273-4. 
Inadequate  introduction,  272. 
Prejudiced  introduction,  278. 
Vague  definitions,  45-6. 
Forensic       introductions      quoted, 
topics  of : 

A    Condemnation    of    the    Epi- 
curean Theory  of  Life,  272. 
Are    Continental    Areas    Perma- 
nent ?  273. 
Are  the  Enjoyment  and  Cultiva- 
tion of  the  Fine  Arts  Essential 
to  the  Highest  Type  of  Civiliza- 
tion ?  46. 
Did  Henry  Clay  enter  into  a  Cor- 
rupt Bargain  in  1825?  272. 
Was    Clement  XIV.   justified  in 
suppressing  the  Jesuits  in  1773? 
278. 
Was  the  Course  of  the  Beacons- 
field  Ministry   in   the   Eastern 
Question  Advantageous  to  Eng- 
land? 182-185. 
Was   Webster's  Attitude  on  the 
Slavery  Question  in  the  Seventh 
of   March    Speech    Statesman- 
like ?  45. 
Formal  logic,  why  knowledge  of  is 
not    essential  to    study  of    argu- 
mentation, 21 ;     contrasted    with 
applied  logic,  24. 
Fortes  Fortuna  Adjuvat,  a  school- 
boy's argument,  ^7-8. 


Good  briefs,  examples  of,  H,  111  ; 
J,  121  ;  U,  154;  V,  159. 


408 


INDEX. 


H. 

Hasty  preparation  of  an  argument, 
two  rules  to  prevent,  167  ;  illus- 
tration of  a,  1 67-171;  a  third 
result  of,  171. 

Hence,  as  wrong  connective  in  brief 
proper,  132-3,  illustrated  by  N, 
132. 

Hurtful  admissions,  240. 


Ignoratio  Elenchi,  259-265. 
Ignoring  the  question,  259-265. 
Individuality      in      argumentation, 

172-175. 
Internal  tests  of  evidence,  242-267, 

see  Tests. 
Introduction,   of    a    brief,  86-108; 
length    of,     91-2;     test    of,    92; 
vagueness  in  phrasing  of,  92-99, 
illustrated  by  A,  82,  B,  92,  C,  95; 
rules  for,  97  ;  illustrations  of  cor- 
related and  uncorrelated,  I)  and 
revision,  100;    prejudice  in,   115, 
illustrated  by  G,  106. 
Of  a  forensic,   271-293  ;  work  of 
conviction  in,    271-279;    illus- 
trations of  bad  and  good,  272- 
274  ;  three  kinds  of  poor,  274  ; 
when  conclusion   to  be   stated 
in,  274-276;  use  of   an  outline 
in,  276  ;  elegance  in,  276  ;  prej- 
udicial,    277,     illustration     of, 
278  ;  summary  of,  279;  persua- 
sion  in,    279-292,    see   Persua- 
sion ;    relative   proportions    of 
conviction   and   persuasion  in, 
292. 

L. 

Logic,    relation    of    to   argumenta- 
tion, 13-15. 


M. 

Mastery  of  subject,  317-8. 

Methods  of  conviction,  aim  of,  344. 

Methods  of  persuasion,  aim  of,  344. 

Methods  of  refutation,  305-309. 

Motives,  of  men,  variety  of,  in  num- 
ber and  grade,  348-351  ;  choose 
the  highest,  351  ;  the  larger  the 
audience,  the  higher  the,  352. 

N. 

Narrowing  the  question,  108. 
Negative  testimony,  239. 
Non  causa,  pro  causa,  251-2. 
Non  scquitur,  245. 

O. 

Objections,  fallacy  of,  262-264. 

Orator,  as  opposed  to  actor,  358. 

Order,  proposition,  proof,  in  foren- 
sic, 295. 

Origin  of  question,  study  of,  the 
third  step  in  analysis,  66  ;  danger 
avoided  by  study  of,  69. 

Originality  in   argumentation,   172- 

1.75- 

Outline,  use  of,  in  forensic  intro- 
duction, 276. 


Peroration,    its     importance,    322 
work  in  conviction  of,   325-329 
work  in  persuasion  of,  329-334 
mingling    of    conviction  and  per- 
suasion   in,    334  ;     avoidance    of 
statements     not      in      argument 
proper,  335 ;  qualities  of  a  good, 
335-340  ;  aim  of,  340  ;  summary 
of  342. 

Persuasion,  method  of,  1 ;  illustration 
of  pure,  4-5  ;  weakness  of  pure, -, ; 


INDEX. 


409 


interrelation  of,  with  conviction,  7 ; 
as  the  fourth  great  division  of 
argumentation,  32;  relative  pro- 
portions in  forensic  introduction, 
of  conviction  and  of,  292 ;  chapter 
on,  343-374 ;  importance  of,  343  ; 
aim  of,  344  ;  field  of,  344~5  5 
sources  of,  345-348  ;  from  nature 
of  subject,  345-6  ;  from  rhetorical 
treatment  of  subject,  346-7  ;  from 
application  of  subject  to  audience, 
347-8;  study  of,  as  opposed  to 
study  of  conviction,  350  ;  essen- 
tials of,  350 ;  suggestions  for  gain- 
ing. 35I~357  5  by  excitation,  357  ; 
value  of  concreteness  in,  362-3; 
order  in,  366-7;  qualities  in  speaker 
or  writer  which  bring,  367-370;  rel- 
ative proportion  with  writer  and 
speaker  of  conviction  and  of,  371— 

373- 

Work  of,  in  argument  itself,  319- 
322  ;  how  to  be  gained,  322. 

Work  of,  in  introduction,  279-292; 
when  subject  is  technical,  280- 
282  ;  when  speaker  is  unknown, 
283-4  ;  when  audience  may 
become  hostile,  284-5  '■>  when 
audience  is  hostile,  286. 

Work,  of,  in  peroration,  329-334  ; 
mingling    of,    with    conviction, 

334- 

Persuasive  methods  in  argumenta- 
tion, 1 5  ;  reason  for  importance 
of,  343-4  5  aim  of,  344. 

Petitio  principii,  249-258. 

Post  hoc,  propter  hoc,  252-3. 

Prejudice,  fair  and  unfair,  291-2. 

Prejudiced  brief  introductions,  105; 
forensic  introductions,  277-8. 

Preliminary  definition  of  terms,  ad- 
vantages of,  59-63. 


Premise,  relation  to  conclusion,  244 ; 

undue  assumption  of,  251-258. 
Presumption,     distinguished     from 

assumption,  308,  footnote. 
Proof,  rough  division  of,  109;  origin 

and  nature  of,  180. 
Proposition,  not  term,  33  ;  methods 

of  deciding  whether    it    phrases 

question  in  dispute,  40  ;  definition 

necessary  for  understanding  most, 

41. 
Proving  true  of  a  part  only,  264. 
Purpose  of  this  book,  27. 
Purpose  of  tests  of  evidence,  267. 


Qualification,  in  conclusions,  153; 
in  use  of  evidence,  315-317; 
rules  for  avoidance  of,  317. 


Reading,  a  common  method  of,  166. 
Red  actio  ad  absurdam,  305-6. 
References,  do  not  quote  only,  295  ; 
put  on  pages  where  they  belong, 

295- 
Refutation, 

In  brief  proper,  109-125;  two 
kinds  of,  109-111  ;  how  to  ar- 
range, in,  illustrated  by  H, 
in  ;  I,  117  ;  J,  121  ;  marking 
of,    125;     bad    correlation    of, 

145. 
Effective   methods   of,   305-309  ; 
what     it     accomplishes,    309  ; 
destructive     not     constructive, 

3°9- 

Resemblances,  argument  from,  206- 
214. 

Residues,  method  of,  308-9. 

Rhetoric,  relation  of  to  argumenta- 
tion, 26;    place  of  in  argumenta- 


410 


INDEX. 


tion,  1 6  ;  uses  of  persuasive  effect, 

346-7- 
Rhetorical  structure,  the  third  great 
division  of  argumentation,  32. 


Shifting  ground,  in  evidence,  261-2. 
Sifting  of  evidence,  why  necessary, 

216-219. 
Sign,  argument  from,  203-4. 
Sincerity,  an  essential  of  persuasion, 

359>  370- 

Skill,  an  essential  of  persuasion,  371. 

Sources  of  persuasion,  345-348. 

Special  issue,  finding  of,  the  fourth 
great  step  in  analysis,  70; 
method  of  finding,  74. 

Special  interests  of  audience,  neces- 
sity of  finding  out,  353-355. 

Statesmanlike,  vague  definition  of 
in  student's  forensic,  45  ;  good 
definition  of,  50. 

Startle  the  audience,  often  helpful 

to,  355-357- 

Sub-heads,  not  supporting  their 
headings,  146. 

Summary,  relation  of,  to  brief,  84- 
86;  of  brief  introduction,  108; 
of  brief  proper,  1 50 ;  of  con- 
clusion, 1 54 ;  of  preparatory 
reading,  175  ;  of  first  test  of 
evidence,  227  ;  of  second  test, 
229;  of  the  three  external  tests, 
237-8  ;  of  fallacies  of  ambiguity, 
249 ;  of  begging  the  question, 
258 ;  of  ignoring  the  question, 
264-5  '■>  °f  external  and  internal 
tests,  267-8  ;  of  forensic  in- 
troduction, 279 ;  value  of,  in 
emphasis,  312;  of  peroration, 
342  ;  of  sincerity  in  persuasion, 
367-370. 


Surprise,    an    element    of,    in    the 
peroration,  335. 

T. 

Tabulation  of  evidence,  209-214. 
Tact,   an   essential    of    persuasion, 

370-1. 
Technical  subject,  introduction  to, 

280-284. 
Term,  why  we  cannot  argue  a,  33  ; 
way  in  which  danger  of  treating 
term   as   proposition   arises,  36 ; 
advantages  of  preliminary  defini- 
tion of,  59-63,  illustrated  by,  B, 
92  ;  C,  95. 
Testimony,    given    under    compul- 
sion, 228-9  ;  undesigned,  238-9  ; 
negative,  239. 
Tests  of  evidence,  220-238. 

Of    statement,     220-227  ;      con- 
sistency with   ordinary   experi- 
ence,    221-224 ;     weakness   of 
this  test,  224 ;  consistency  with 
known  facts  of  the  case,  224-5; 
danger  of  this  test,  225-6;  con- 
sistency   with     itself,     226-7  '■> 
summary,  227. 
Of  conditions  under  which  state- 
ment is  made,  228-9  5  summary, 
229. 
Of  witness,  230-237,  see  Witness. 
Summary  of  the  three   external, 
237-8 ;    external  and    internal, 
242  ;  internal,  242-267,  see  Fal- 
lacies;  purpose  of,  267;    sum- 
mary of   external  and  internal, 
267-8. 
Therefore,  as  wrong   connective   in 
brief    proper,    132-3,    illustrated 
by  N,  132. 
Three  final  suggestions,  375-6. 
Transitions,  between    divisions    of 


INDEX. 


411 


brief  proper,    138,  illustrated  by 
P,  138. 

U. 

Undue  assumption  of  a  premise, 
251-258. 

Unfair  prejudice,  and  fair,  292. 

Unsupported  assumptions,  250. 

Use  of  different  meanings  of  same 
word  at  will,  246-7;  of  external 
and  internal  tests  at  will,  267  ;  of 
material  not  one's  own,  two  rules 
for,  172  ;  of  metaphors,  similes, 
and  imaginary  cases,  256  ;  of  out- 
line in  forensic  introductions,  276. 

Usual  habit  of  mind  of  audience, 
necessity  of  finding  out,  353. 


Vagueness  of  phrasing  in  brief  in- 
troductions, 92-99,  illustrated  by 
A,  82;  B,  92;  C,  95;  in  brief 
proper,     135-138,    illustrated    by 

o,  137. 


Variety  of  motives,  348-351. 

Vividness,  essential  in  any  appeal  to 
the  emotions,  359-366  ;  a  method 
of  gaining,  361  ;  concreteness  the 
greatest  aid  to,  362-3. 

W. 

Witness,  willing  or  reluctant,  228. 
Examination  of,  230-237. 
For  prejudicial  evidence,  230-232; 

for  intellectual   power,    232-3 ; 

for   physical  power,   233  ;    for 

moral  character,  234-237. 
Always  state  who  an  unknown  is, 

299. 
Words,  with  two  common  meanings, 
left  undefined,  246  ;  used  as  iden- 
tical because  they  look  alike,  267  ; 
confusion  of  etymological  and 
common  meanings  of,  248  ;  unex- 
plained and  used  with  wrong 
meaning,  248. 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORS. 


Academy,  The,  239. 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  from  Lectures  on 
Oratory,  298. 

Bagehot,  from  The  Age  of  Discus- 
sion, 32. 

Beecher,  H.  W.,  from  Liverpool 
Speech,  57,  72-3,  288-9,  3°5-6, 
321-2,  353-4. 

Best,  from  On  Evidence,  180. 

Brooks,  Phillips,  from  Lectures  on 
Preaching,  17 1-2,  317-8. 

Burke,  Edmund,  from  speech  on 
Conciliation  with  American  Colo- 
nies, 194-5.  3o6>  3l2~3- 

Carpenter,  G.  R.,  from  Exercises  in 
Rhetoric  and  English  Composi- 
tion, 17. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  from  speech  to 
First  Protectorate  Parliament,  ^y. 

Day,  H.  N.,  Art  of  Discourse,  347. 

Demosthenes,  from  Olynthiacs  and 
Philippics,  320-1, 329-30,  356,364- 
366. 

Dicey,  A.  V.,  from  The  Verdict,  10, 
76,  197-8,  228,  296-7,  300-1. 

Digby,  Sir  Kenelm,  from  dedication 
to  Treatise  on  Bodies,  319. 

Dryden,  John,  from  Defense  of 
Dramatic  Poesy,  290-1. 

Erskine,  Lord,  from  Defense  of  Lord 
George  Gordon,  48,  74-5,  331-2, 
368-9. 

Fielding  Henry,  from  Tom  Jones, 
42-44. 


Fletcher,  J.  B.,  and  Carpenter,  G.  R., 
from  Introduction  to  Theme 
Writing,  26. 

Genung,  John,  from  Practical  Rhet- 
oric, 221,  233. 

Gilmer,  F.  W.,  from  Sketches  and 
Essays  on  Public  Characters,  81. 

Goodrich,  Select  British  Eloquence, 

369- 
Grattan,   Henry,  from    Declaration 

of  Irish  Rights,  4-5. 
Green,  A.  K.,  from  The  Mill  Mys- 
tery, 240. 
Guizot,  History  of  Civilization,  53. 
Harlan,  Justice,  from  Behring  Sea 

Tribunal,  77-8,  257,  313-315. 
Herndon  and   Weik,  from  Life  of 

Lincoln,  73-4,  80-1. 
Hill,  A.  S.,from  Principles  of  Rhet- 
oric, 308,  footnote. 
Holmes,  G.  C.  V.,  from  an  article 

on  the  Steam  Engine,  58. 
Hope,  Anthony,  from  Man  of  Mark, 

260. 
Huxley,  T.  H.,  from  first  of  Three 

Lectures    on   Evolution,  57,    199, 

280-2,  307-8. 
Jebb,  R.  C,  from  Attic  Orators,  283, 

311,  320,  323,  324-5,   330,  332- 

334,  341-2,  376. 
Jevons,  from  Primer  of  Logic,  14,  33. 
Junius,  from  Letter   to  Printer  of 

Public    Advertiser,    285-6,    328, 

356. 


414 


INDEX   OF  AUTHORS. 


Lewis,  G.  C,  from   Best  Form  of 

Government,  168-9. 
Lincoln,  A.,  from  Complete  Works, 

284. 
Lowell,  J.  R.,  from  Political  Essays, 

50;     Franciscus     de    Verulamio, 

174-5;  from  Literary  Essays,  318. 
Macaulay,  Thomas,  from  Review  of 

Croker's  Boswell's  Johnson,  194, 

227,  232-3,  301-2. 
Mansfield,   Lord,  from  Defense  of 

Allan  Evans,  2-3. 
Marlowe,    Christopher,  from   Tam- 

burlaine,  360. 
Monthly  Religious  Magazine,  272. 
Newman,  Cardinal,  from  Idea  of  a 

University,  28-9,  37-8,  40-1. 
Norman,  Henry,  from   In  the  Far 

East,  239. 
Ottolengui,    R.,    from   A    Modern 

Wizard,  200-202,  231-2. 
Pitt,  William  (the  younger),  from 

speech  on  the  Slave  Trade,  315-6; 

(the  elder)  from  speech  on  Remov- 
ing   the    Troops    from    Boston, 

354-5- 


Phelps,    Austin,    from    Theory   of 

Preaching,  298,  359. 
Robinson,  William,  from   Forensic 

Oratory,  9,  10,  233-4,  234-5,  235- 

237- 

Ruskin,  John,  from  Modern  Paint- 
ers, 52  ;  from  Stones  of  Venice, 
302-304. 

Sidgwick,  Alfred,  from  Process  of 
Argument,  21-23,  24>  224~5>  226- 

Sidney,  Sir  Philip,  from  Defense  of 
Poesy,  54-5,  338-9. 

Smith,  Adam,  from  Wealth  of  Na- 
tions, 192-3. 

Stevenson,  R.  L.,  from  Letter  on 
Father  Damien,  56-7. 

Story,  Judge,  from  Life  and  Letters, 
81-2. 

Story,  W.  W.,  from  A  Roman  Law- 
yer in  Jerusalem,  221-223,  327~&- 

Whately,  William,  from  Elements 
of  Logic,  203,  242,  248,  259. 

Wheatley,  H.  B.,  from  Literary 
Blunders,  55-6. 

Wyatt,  Sir  Thomas,  from  his  De- 
fense, 71-2,  1 8 1-2. 


\£a?<*. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE,  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  11  OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


BAR  19^ 


2 


FtB     1 


--M948- 


Tp> 


_J2La/54|f|H-< 


'NTER 


UJ96I 


fc 


%    *' 


ttrrt* 


^t****1 


u** 


IYL.R 


mi     «>- 


L-o*N 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1  -year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


WN21  2006 


DD20  12M  1-05 


